[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1409161318510.1166-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:22:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
cc: "Subhransu S. Prusty" <subhransu.s.prusty@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Add helper to mark last busy and autosuspend
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > 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!
You said this was common, but you didn't change any of the other places
these routines get used. I asked why and you didn't asnwer; all you
said was that you needed it for one of your drivers.
I then pointed out that you don't need it. You didn't asnwer.
I asked what advantage this change brings. You didn't answer.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists