On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:48:01PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:44:04PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:24:23AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > - I don't know whether it's feasible, but it would be nice if the
> > > intel_pm_runtime_pm.c rework could be done in one shot instead of
> > > being split between patches 1/3 and 2/3.
> > >
> > > Maybe it could be a preliminary patch that uses the existing
> > > if_active/if_in_use interfaces, followed by the trivial if_active
> > > updates in this patch. I think that would make the history easier
> > > to read than having the transitory pm_runtime_get_conditional() in
> > > the middle.
> >
> > I think I'd merge the two patches. The second patch is fairly small, after
> > all, and both deal with largely the same code.
>
> I'm not sure which two patches you mean, but the fact that two patches
> deal with largely the same code is not necessarily an argument for
> merging them. From a reviewing perspective, it's nice if a patch like
Patches 1 and 2. The third patch introduces a new Runtime PM API function.
> 1/3, where it's largely mechanical and easy to review, is separated
> from patches that make more substantive changes.
>
> That's why I think it'd be nice if the "interesting"
> intel_pm_runtime_pm.c changes were all in the same patch, and ideally,
> if that patch *only* touched intel_pm_runtime_pm.c.
I don't think squashing the second patch to the first really changes this
meaningfully: the i915 driver simply needs both
pm_runtime_get_if_{active,in_use}, and this is what the patch does to other
drivers already. Making the pm_runtime_get_conditional static would also
fit for the first patch if the desire is to not to introduce it at all.
--
Sakari Ailus
