Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] iio: Stop looking at pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() return codes

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:47:34AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:01:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > After three patches I stopped because it seems more works needs in each of
> > the individual drivers. Yes, the series can be applied as is in exchange for
> > a bigger additional churn in the future. My preference is to see everything
> > settled down in a single step.
> 
> There are limits in how much work I'm willing to do on a bunch of
> drivers I don't use, can't test, and frankly have no actual interest in.
> I'm sure if I spent a few more minutes on each driver, I could find
> another dozen things to try to improve.
> 
> I can go back to the v1 approach (fix only what I came to do) if you'd
> prefer.
> 
> Or, I'd prefer to stick with the sentiment Jonathan expressed in
> optionally requesting additional refactoring:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261018211807.66bfea0d@jic23-hlaptop/
> that most of these changes are optional, and that fixing 1 thing is not
> a subscription to fixing everything.

Right, but my concerns is that in (some) cases you can do one step further and
use PM_RUNTIME_ACQUIRE*() instead of putting first the explicit calls in this
series and makes someone to basically do the same again. To me it sounds like
a double effort. Yes, that is_active thing perhaps to much to follow, but even
there it can be refactored to something like

	if (is_active) {
		ret = regmap...
	} else {
		PM_RUNTIME_ACQUIRE*();
		...
		ret = regmap...
	}

without changing the driver logic.

Whatever, I am not a maintainer here, so if Jonathan is okay with this churn,
then it's fine.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko