From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754179AbaIPPkJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:40:09 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:63605 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751540AbaIPPkG (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:40:06 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,862,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="386886578" Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:44:57 +0530 From: Vinod Koul To: Alan Stern Cc: "Subhransu S. Prusty" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ulf Hansson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Add helper to mark last busy and autosuspend Message-ID: <20140916151457.GQ3131@intel.com> References: <1410864231-10334-1-git-send-email-subhransu.s.prusty@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:27:53AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Subhransu S. Prusty wrote: > > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy and pm_runtime_put_autosuspend are used together > > in quite a lot of places. Add a helper for these. > > > > Signed-off-by: Subhransu S. Prusty > > --- > > include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pm_runtime.h b/include/linux/pm_runtime.h > > index 367f49b..256ec50 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/pm_runtime.h > > +++ b/include/linux/pm_runtime.h > > @@ -277,4 +277,10 @@ static inline void pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(struct device *dev) > > __pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(dev, false); > > } > > > > +static inline int pm_runtime_last_busy_and_autosuspend(struct device *dev) > > +{ > > + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev); > > + return pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev); > > +} > > + > > #endif > > What's the advantage? Removing a few bytes of source code? There will > no change to the object code. (Not to mention that your patch didn't > actually change _any_ of the places where both routines get called!) Yes we didnt change users, as we need this for one of our drivers we are trying to push. > Besides, if you're going to make an addition to the runtime PM API like > this, then you also have to update Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt. Sure if you folks are okay we can send update with Documentaion patch too -- ~Vinod