[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170221110730.GF5021@amd>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:07:30 +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 4/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if
SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power
On Mon 2017-02-20 21:33:27, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Nothing in the PSCI specification requires the SoC to remain powered and
> to support wake-up sources when suspended using SYSTEM_SUSPEND.
> If the firmware implements the PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND operation by cutting
> power to the SoC, the only possibly wake-up sources are thus the ones
> connected to the PMIC.
>
> Document and add support for an "arm,psci-system-suspend-is-power-down"
> DT property, so Linux uses a different suspend method when other wake-up
> sources (e.g. wake on LAN, UART or GPIO) are enabled.
Should we make PSCI return that information? (At least in next
specification version?)
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