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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9F4C432BE for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 138BF60FE6 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239539AbhHaL1H (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2021 07:27:07 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:43896 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241379AbhHaL1G (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2021 07:27:06 -0400 Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 107B620162; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:26:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1630409171; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/9SFWtiOPIESpH37JD6F68KELXZNR++2goyG9PD0byM=; b=RjH5trcULmt+1ajZX/hr5P4SSTgUDInU3By4SV09MlKEsMYcqR+viQE0mJn6Cnp7Ux1Dp7 6b5LvyoI0kkI6/f7+v21YZF06lbD8KtzWfECktxkL6EXvDidh5d5D+47FlK2VAx671tK0A 3vE72WH/z40Xw/B+PU5gVmcgMP60IHg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1630409171; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/9SFWtiOPIESpH37JD6F68KELXZNR++2goyG9PD0byM=; b=FFN++RqNU/1vys1a8c9P0D56SFUfqCAQ5Q6RHlETF0Q90PCChYEqRSqSIETwGAoQcTca/s RdLn3wxxIiO+6YDg== Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D7C913A8B; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 3F1OI9IRLmFfDAAAGKfGzw (envelope-from ); Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:26:10 +0000 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 13:26:09 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Heiner Kallweit Cc: Wolfram Sang , Andy Shevchenko , Jarkko Nikula , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] i2c: i801: Improve disabling runtime pm Message-ID: <20210831132609.201c37f2@endymion> In-Reply-To: <41456674-800b-a4c2-3b2c-d5af18c58e61@gmail.com> References: <10690555-2317-4916-70b8-870708858f9b@gmail.com> <3f225422-b343-eaef-0a95-9d15a5a378f2@gmail.com> <20210826160021.67b7ed92@endymion> <41456674-800b-a4c2-3b2c-d5af18c58e61@gmail.com> Organization: SUSE Linux X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.18.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 08:05:41 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > On 26.08.2021 16:00, Jean Delvare wrote: > > If pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay() is not suitable for the task then > > maybe we need a better API. I will admit I'm at a loss when it comes to > > the many pm_runtime_* calls, I'm not going to claim I fully understand > > what each of them is doing exactly. But don't we want to simply call > > pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() here? > > > > If not and there's no suitable API for the task at the moment, then > > better do not apply this patch, and instead ask the PM subsystem > > maintainers if they would be willing to implement what we need. > > To follow-up on this: This patch has been applied already. Therefore, > if decision is to not go with it, it would need to be reverted. Technically it's not in Linus' tree yet ;-) I'm still interested to know if pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() is the right call to use in this situation. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support