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

[Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:54:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, September 25, 2014 04:27:58 PM Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > 
> > --Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > 
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:22:01AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 01:27:18PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:32:19PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > > > > OK, I guess this is as good as it gets.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > What tree would you like it go through?
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > 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 t=
> > his
> > > > > > > change. I wonder if it's really valid...
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I'm not sure I'm following?  This seems to simply implement what dr=
> > ivers
> > > > > > have been doing already as one function.  Why would it be invalid t=
> > o reduce
> > > > > > code duplication?
> > > > >=20
> > > > > For two reasons:
> > > > >=20
> > > > > 1) the helper has no inteligence whatsoever. It just calls the same
> > > > > functions.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > 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 th=
> > at
> > > > > needs to change.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > 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 fu=
> > ture
> > > > 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.
> > >=20
> > > as I said, a commit that's bound to be useless. It's not like you're
> > > saving 10 lines of code, it's only one. Replacing two simple lines with
> > > a function which takes <joke> almost as many characters to type </joke>.
> > >=20
> > > IMO, this is pretty useless and I'd rather not see them in the drivers I
> > > maintain, sorry.
> > 
> > It is not a NACK from me; yet from a high-level perspective I agree with
> > Felipe.
> 
> OK
> 
> I'd rather not merge something that driver people don't want to use.
> 
> Vinod?
There have been quite a few ACKs as well. Either way am okay. If you feel
this will get removed as discussed, then there is no point in merging

-- 
~Vinod