Re: [PATCH 32/51] PCI/portdrv: Switch to __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend()

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

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@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  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.