Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Update last busy timestamp in Runtime PM autosuspend callbacks

[Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Rafael,

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
> <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> 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
> > <URL:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241004094101.113349-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com/>.
> >
> > 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
> > <URL:https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sailus/linux-next.git/log/?h=pm-direct-on-next>.
> >
> > 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.

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus