Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] PM: runtime: Propagate last_busy from dependent to dependency

[Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 5:44 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 05:13:09PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 1:24 AM Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I'll give this some time in case Rafael had any other thoughts/replies,
> > > but unless something major changes, I'll plan to write/test/submit v3
> > > where rpm_idle() calls pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() (part of Rafael's
> > > proposal), and *not* make it conditional (i.e., no
> > > pm_runtime_use_autosuspend_always()).
> >
> > That will work for me.
> >
> > > (Or, Rafael is free to do so, since it's his idea. Just let me know so I
> > > don't waste my time on it. But I figure he'd rather someone else do the
> > > work.)
> >
> > I can cut that patch.  It is going to be a one-liner if I'm not
> > mistaken and I'd like to write a changelog for it.
>
> OK.
>
> There's potentially quite a bit of follow-up, including patch 5 of this
> series (to drop now-redundant .runtime_idle() callbacks), but I can roll
> that separately if you'd like. (Would you want to make an immutable
> branch for other subsystems to pick the 1-liner up? Or just apply such
> patches to your tree, as it seems the IIO maintainer was probably OK
> with that?)

Either of the above is workable in principle, depending on how the
cards will fall.

If need be, I can create an immutable branch.