On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 01:27:18PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:32:19PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
OK, I guess this is as good as it gets.
What tree would you like it go through?
Do we really need this new helper ? I mean, the very moment when we decide to implement ->runtime_idle() we will need to get rid of this change. I wonder if it's really valid...
I'm not sure I'm following? This seems to simply implement what drivers have been doing already as one function. Why would it be invalid to reduce code duplication?
For two reasons:
- the helper has no inteligence whatsoever. It just calls the same
functions.
- the duplication will vanish whenever someone implements
->runtime_idle() and have that call pm_runtime_autosuspend() (like PCI and USB buses are doing today). This will just be yet another line that needs to change.
Frankly though, no strong feelings, I just think it's a commit that doesn't bring that any benefits other than looking like one line was removed.
and yes that is what it tries to do nothing more nothing less. If in future there are no users (today we have quite a few), then we can remove the dead macro, no harm. But that is not the situation today.
as I said, a commit that's bound to be useless. It's not like you're saving 10 lines of code, it's only one. Replacing two simple lines with a function which takes <joke> almost as many characters to type </joke>.
IMO, this is pretty useless and I'd rather not see them in the drivers I maintain, sorry.
cheers