[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdU0fTtEXN9k477e3S-UUMNhd=U4_r0VOcyA1TGEgA5rmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:47:39 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....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" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow
suspend mode
Hi Sudeep,
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> On 21/02/17 16:32, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>>> On 21/02/17 11:07, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Yes it can, and IIUC it already does on this platform with CPU_SUSPEND.
>>> All it now needs is just to use existing "freeze" suspend mode in Linux.
>>
>> How can Linux know if using "deep" suspend will allow to wake-up the system
>> according to configured wake-up sources, or not?
>
> I am not sure if we have such selective configuration of wakeup source
> implemented in Linux.
>
> ACPI specification has some provisions where each device can state if it
> can specify device state in each system sleeping state that can wake the
> system.
>
> DT has no mechanism today to express this relations. I had brought up
> this discussion in plumbers(2015). Refer slide 7 in [0]
>
> And the way you are trying to do that is not correct IMO especially
> making it just PSCI specific.
>
>> Note that "it will not, ever" is an accepted answer.
>
> IIUC, it's not implemented today. I can't talk about future ;), but your
Good, so there's no need for the DT property, and drivers/firmware/psci.c
should aways call do_cpu_idle() instead of PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND if any
other wake-up sources are configured?
That follows the principle of least surprise: it doesn't leave the user with
a system that won't wake up the way he configured it to wake up.
> proposal is horrible hack.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists