From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 797BA1E51EE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750104653; cv=none; b=YGbDiYEiRlqmc4TQJ7ftHS3GciR3UlRReJTJi0GdDaaawbdl0AlallgS+Zb00lCsB3eomTxrkt+LsCSUAhqYGa9aF5y7xxlUfS+WUdqlW9i84Yy8Cy8cu05FKW8WaRqaL3ZqYhTGnlylI1aQD5w0R3MykFhRD//v5GqoojFrL+Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750104653; c=relaxed/simple; bh=siwzsEX/RsxClIOiFZuewcUx+IHCVT42sY6i74Oh+BU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZJ52bfrD86OeuxvRHfPf36JtT0YlnU8u2pEfHuiwYFv4jo1ljCmRFSfdN9S+Lp/nUjC8LSWvaY6cR8nOv/TgZ1XwK5jts2I7JrX0+x4RAxz0SNaU/SV5EazzbvLmsGwNSsjXx/lbOKxU9IPeS2AfXLU2k9H6SDjQauEhz5VT70o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=htstqk8Y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="htstqk8Y" Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (81-175-209-231.bb.dnainternet.fi [81.175.209.231]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0EB1C6D; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 22:10:37 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1750104638; bh=siwzsEX/RsxClIOiFZuewcUx+IHCVT42sY6i74Oh+BU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=htstqk8Y0Rykwt3+LehE+30nqRSil9MBl/yVLbgkkxgwFhZxL/C3hoVdVjKU3Ryka rvYwdbtsudZBL2r916Ko3rIn6z1YaQaePc7v5XcCodV1oMnXK1kJ6VxCY66HxIGouM QM2ynhMnP9xi4cSIhfpwvISr4XS12IGEdXZN+i44= Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:10:33 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Sakari Ailus Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Update last busy timestamp in Runtime PM autosuspend callbacks Message-ID: <20250616201033.GE32454@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20250616061212.2286741-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 07:20:21PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 01:21:02PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 8:12 AM Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > The original plan for adding pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() calls to > > > functions dealing with Runtime PM autosuspend originally included a few > > > intermediate steps of driver conversion, including the use of recently > > > added __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(). The review of the set converting the > > > users first to __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() concluded this wasn't > > > necessary. See > > > . > > > > > > This set extends the inclusion of the pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() call to > > > the _autosuspend() variants of the Runtime PM functions dealing with > > > suspending devices, i.e. pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(), > > > pm_runtime_put_sync_autosuspend(), pm_runtime_autosuspend() and > > > pm_request_autosuspend(). This will introduce, for a brief amount of time, > > > unnecessary calls to pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() but this wasn't seen as > > > an issue. Also, all users of these functions, including those that did not > > > call pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(), will now include that call. Presumably > > > in the vast majority of the cases a missing call would have been a bug. > > > > > > Once this set is merged, I'll post further patches to remove the extra > > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() calls. The current set of these patches is > > > here > > > . > > > > > > It'd be best to have all merged within the same cycle. > > > > > > Rafael: any thoughts on the merging? > > > > I'm going to queue this up for 6.17. > > Thank you! :-) > > > > Would an immutable branch on top of rc1 be an option? > > > > I think so, but does anyone need it? > > I guess it's not mandatory but we'll have now a lot of redundant calls to > the pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). It just doesn't look very elegant. In the > end it's all up to what the maintainers prefer. Those calls should be removed, but for the drivers I maintain, I don't mind much if the removal is delayed until v6.18. Still, an immutable branch based on v6.16-rc1 would speed up this work, and I think it's worth it. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart