On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 20:49, Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com wrote:
Hi Ulf,
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 04:38:36PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 11:41, Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
This set will switch the users of pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() to __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() while the former will soon be re-purposed to include a call to pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). The two are almost always used together, apart from bugs which are likely common. Going forward, most new users should be using pm_runtime_put_autosuspend().
Once this conversion is done and pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() re-purposed, I'll post another set to merge the calls to __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() and pm_runtime_mark_last_busy().
That sounds like it could cause a lot of churns.
Why not add a new helper function that does the pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() and the pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() things? Then we can start moving users over to this new interface, rather than having this intermediate step?
I think the API would be nicer if we used the shortest and simplest function names for the most common use cases. Following pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() with pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() is that most common use case. That's why I like Sakari's approach of repurposing pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(), and introducing __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() for the odd cases where pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() shouldn't be called.
Okay, so the reason for this approach is because we couldn't find a short and descriptive name that could be used in favor of pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(). Let me throw some ideas at it and maybe you like it - or not. :-)
I don't know what options you guys discussed, but to me the entire "autosuspend"-suffix isn't really that necessary in my opinion. There are more ways than calling pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() that triggers us to use the RPM_AUTO flag for rpm_suspend(). For example, just calling pm_runtime_put() has the similar effect.
Moreover, it's similar for pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(), it's called during rpm_resume() too, for example. So why bother about having "mark_last_busy" in the new name too.
That said, my suggestion is simply "pm_runtime_put_suspend".
If you don't like it, I will certainly not object to your current approach, even if I think it leads to unnecessary churns.
[...]
Kind regards Uffe