[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UiCcqCm+W4=ExOps8Npi=mkdVgJ2zgdomOw3YqPhCqug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:30:51 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: rockchip: correct regulator PM properties
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de> wrote:
> great, just take into account the deep vs. shallow suspend modes :-)
One note: do you think it would make sense to re-implement shallow
suspend as "standby"? I had a proof of concept doing that in
<https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/275123/>. One nice
advantage is that you "magically" get a second set of regulator states
for standby vs "mem".
If I understand correctly, the distinction between "standby" and "mem"
is not too clearly defined, so if we wanted to use it for this it
wouldn't be terrible?
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists