On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:48:01PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:44:04PM +, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:24:23AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > - I don't know whether it's feasible, but it would be nice if the
> > > intel_pm_runti
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:44:04PM +, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:24:23AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> ...
> > - 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 betwe
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
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
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
