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 <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
