Re: [PATCH 00/27] add pm_runtime_last_busy_and_autosuspend() helper

Vinod Koul
2014-09-25T07:57:18Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1306 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:32:19PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > OK, I guess this is as good as it gets.
> > > >
> > > > What tree would you like it go through?
> > >
> > > Do we really need this new helper ? I mean, the very moment when we
> > > decide to implement ->runtime_idle() we will need to get rid of this
> > > change. I wonder if it's really valid...
> >
> > I'm not sure I'm following? This seems to simply implement what drivers
> > have been doing already as one function. Why would it be invalid to reduce
> > code duplication?
>
> For two reasons:
>
> 1) the helper has no inteligence whatsoever. It just calls the same
> functions.
>
> 2) the duplication will vanish whenever someone implements
> ->runtime_idle() and have that call pm_runtime_autosuspend() (like PCI
> and USB buses are doing today). This will just be yet another line that
> needs to change.
>
> Frankly though, no strong feelings, I just think it's a commit that
> doesn't bring that any benefits other than looking like one line was
> removed.
and yes that is what it tries to do nothing more nothing less. If in future
there are no users (today we have quite a few), then we can remove the dead
macro, no harm. But that is not the situation today.

Thanks
--
~Vinod

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org