On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 08:46:07AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On 10/30/26 3:57 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Hi Frank, > > > > Thanks for the patch. > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 12:30:37PM -0400, [email protected] wrote: > > > From: Frank Li <[email protected]> > > > > > > When CONFIG_PM is not enabled, all devices runtime PM state should be > > > treated as active. > > > > > > __pm_runtime_resume() returns 1 (called by pm_runtime_get()). > > > pm_runtime_get_if_active() is the try-and-get version of pm_runtime_get(). > > > stub pm_runtime_active() also returns true. So pm_runtime_get_if_active() > > > should return the same value as the stub pm_runtime_get(), which is 1. > > > > Shouldn't the same change be done to pm_runtime_get_if_in_use()? It's > > otherwise the same, except that it requires also the use count to be > > non-zero. > I think "yes." > > I think the logic for !CONFIG_PM should basically pretend runtime > PM is enabled for all devices, and they're all ACTIVE and effectively > in use. > > That implies: > - disable_depth == 0, so usage accounting would (if enabled) be done > - runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE (power is on, no delay) > - usage_count > 0 > - runtime_error == 0 > - Maybe ignore_children is false? > > This might not be complete (and could be wrong!). >
We could add this kind of information as a comment somewhere? regards, dan carpenter
