On Fri, 4 Oct 2024, Sakari Ailus wrote: > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() will soon be changed to include a call to > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). This patch switches the current users to > __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() which will continue to have the > functionality of old pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(). > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv.c > index 6af5e0425872..53f48065cc82 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv.c > @@ -711,7 +711,7 @@ static int pcie_portdrv_probe(struct pci_dev *dev, > pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&dev->dev, 100); > pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&dev->dev); > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&dev->dev); > - pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&dev->dev); > + __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&dev->dev); Eh? This call is preceeded by pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() so why all the extra churn when you really only want to remove that pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() call from above when it gets put inside the autosuspend call, no? Is extra last busy marking even dangerous so it could removed after the API change? -- i.
