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

[Sakari Ailus]

Hi Bjorn,

Thanks for the review.

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:24:23AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 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 at linux.intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder at linaro.org> # drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c
> > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
> > Acked-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai at suse.de> # sound/
> > Reviewed-by: Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz at linux.intel.com> # drivers/accel/ivpu/
> > Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com> # drivers/gpu/drm/i915/
> > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas at google.com> # drivers/pci/
> 
> - Previous PM history uses "PM: " in the subject lines (not "pm: ").

Oops. I'm not sure why I used lower case. (Maybe I've written too many
times "media:" prefix to the subject?) I'll fix this in v5.

> 
> - 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.

I think I'd merge the two patches. The second patch is fairly small, after
all, and both deal with largely the same code.

> 
> - 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.

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus