From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58FF7C47258 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 22:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158C510E918; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 22:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.13]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5061B10E918; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 22:40:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1706049634; x=1737585634; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Z/gVOBIyuGeHrB0qusJzDPUINYJVDgoRszKTN0NH9s0=; b=Nn4MyCJLYA5vk0CvgCQOoCpMQDtmqjYqxK07x7oQ8yKu4V/tKp+SrnNP EN2o/6S0zsM3zEi2V7uZ1QkKxpQW35sto0H2OXqcDjgAL6av+w1AknTF4 ROBTHRvus95ThpYdJ1LbLRn9GbiiQujFo/er2bhNYiCrIYXMKHWRw63vv iqaL+epJUjvkXkliTXqaEsGb08Mqr99arSlzBBs4rAdMb0P++eR1V5WQB xDeVq007OUv4ofH8f7xjWPiJ0JqdzPqqvS7a6ZL+ltGc/kloYbDDgORPs cn0L33uuXO0/huU6lXRhxOed4zfIr7YHSUjtc+1LceCP15H5uPfd03uSl g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10962"; a="573953" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,215,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="573953" Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmvoesa107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jan 2024 14:40:33 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10962"; a="876490218" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,215,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="876490218" Received: from turnipsi.fi.intel.com (HELO kekkonen.fi.intel.com) ([10.237.72.44]) by fmsmga003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jan 2024 14:40:27 -0800 Received: from kekkonen.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kekkonen.fi.intel.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 596D411FB8E; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 00:40:25 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 22:40:25 +0000 From: Sakari Ailus To: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] pm: runtime: Simplify pm_runtime_get_if_active() usage Message-ID: References: <20240123214801.GA330312@bhelgaas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240123214801.GA330312@bhelgaas> X-BeenThere: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Xe graphics driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Jaroslav Kysela , Stanislaw Gruszka , laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com, David Airlie , Paul Elder , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Lucas De Marchi , linux-sound@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown , Jacek Lawrynowicz , Rodrigo Vivi , Andy Shevchenko , intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, Alex Elder , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Takashi Iwai , Daniel Vetter , netdev@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-xe" 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