From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754726AbaIPQlw (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:41:52 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:62060 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752211AbaIPQlv (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:41:51 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,535,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="573917879" Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:06:35 +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: <20140916153635.GS3131@intel.com> References: <20140916151457.GQ3131@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 11:58:13AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > 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. > > Why do you need it? Just change your driver to call > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev); > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev); > > instead of > > pm_runtime_last_busy_and_autosuspend(dev); > > Or create a subroutine in your driver to do this. Well since this is common why not add a helper in framework! -- ~Vinod