[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170221110712.GB5021@amd>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:07:12 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow
suspend mode
Hi!
> Enable support for "shallow" suspend mode, also known as "Standby" or
> "Power-On Suspend".
>
> As secondary CPU cores are taken offline, "shallow" suspend mode saves
> slightly more power than "s2idle", but less than "deep" suspend mode.
> However, unlike "deep" suspend mode, "shallow" suspend mode can be used
> regardless of the presence of support for PSCI_SYSTEM_SUSPEND, which is
> an optional API in PSCI v1.0.
If system supports "shallow" suspend, why does not PSCI implement it?
In the past, I was told PSCI will not turn into ACPI-like mess, and
that we'll be able to fix PSCI and will not have to work around its
problems in kernel :-(.
Not your fault, Mark made those promises.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists