On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 3:54 PM Sakari Ailus
<sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(), pm_runtime_put_sync_autosuspend(),
> pm_runtime_autosuspend() and pm_request_autosuspend() now include a call
> to pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). Remove the now-reduntant explicit call to
> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy().
>
> Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
Could this go through the PM tree?
> ---
> The cover letter of the set can be found here
> <URL:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20250704075225.3212486-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>.
>
> In brief, this patch depends on PM runtime patches adding marking the last
> busy timestamp in autosuspend related functions. The patches are here, on
> rc2:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git \
> pm-runtime-6.17-rc1
>
> drivers/bus/sunxi-rsb.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/bus/sunxi-rsb.c b/drivers/bus/sunxi-rsb.c
> index 7a33c3b31d1e..82735c58be11 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/sunxi-rsb.c
> +++ b/drivers/bus/sunxi-rsb.c
> @@ -373,7 +373,6 @@ static int sunxi_rsb_read(struct sunxi_rsb *rsb, u8 rtaddr, u8 addr,
> unlock:
> mutex_unlock(&rsb->lock);
>
> - pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(rsb->dev);
> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(rsb->dev);
>
> return ret;
> @@ -417,7 +416,6 @@ static int sunxi_rsb_write(struct sunxi_rsb *rsb, u8 rtaddr, u8 addr,
>
> mutex_unlock(&rsb->lock);
>
> - pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(rsb->dev);
> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(rsb->dev);
>
> return ret;
> --
> 2.39.5
>
>