Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] pm: runtime: Simplify pm_runtime_get_if_active() usage

[Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:56:42AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> There are two ways to opportunistically increment a device's runtime PM
> usage count, calling either pm_runtime_get_if_active() or
> pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(). The former has an argument to tell whether to
> ignore the usage count or not, and the latter simply calls the former with
> ign_usage_count set to false. The other users that want to ignore the
> usage_count will have to explitly set that argument to true which is a bit
> cumbersome.
> 
> To make this function more practical to use, remove the ign_usage_count
> argument from the function. The main implementation is renamed as
> pm_runtime_get_conditional().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org> # drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> Acked-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> # sound/
> Reviewed-by: Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@linux.intel.com> # drivers/accel/ivpu/
> Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> # drivers/gpu/drm/i915/
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>

Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> # drivers/pci/

- Previous PM history uses "PM: " in the subject lines (not "pm: ").

- I don't know whether it's feasible, but it would be nice if the
  intel_pm_runtime_pm.c rework could be done in one shot instead of
  being split between patches 1/3 and 2/3.

  Maybe it could be a preliminary patch that uses the existing
  if_active/if_in_use interfaces, followed by the trivial if_active
  updates in this patch.  I think that would make the history easier
  to read than having the transitory pm_runtime_get_conditional() in
  the middle.

- Similarly, it would be nice if pm_runtime_get_conditional() never
  had to be published in pm_runtime.h, instead of being temporarily
  added there by this patch and then immediately made private by 2/3.
  Maybe that's not practical, I dunno.

Bjorn