linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: rockchip: correct regulator PM properties

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2079050.z559I6SEaj@phil>
Date:	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 22:51:22 +0200
From:	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
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

Am Donnerstag, 27. August 2015, 12:30:51 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> 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".

Somewhere I've read something about keeping wifi associated to an ap during 
suspend which might be a candidate for such a distinction?


> 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?

>From reading Documentation/power/states.txt it looks like the boot-cpu is 
supposed to retain power in the suspend state. Although we also do not lose 
"operating state" in our suspend I guess?

So using the shallow suspend as standby sounds interesting, for the time when 
the deep suspend works too. If there is only one suspend state it 
automatically becomes the "mem"-state it seems.


Heiko
--
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/