[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180112135526.GC29734@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:55:26 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: PM regression in next
> Thanks that fixes the suspend error. And I was able to confirm
> that the suspend power consumption is OK.
>
> That still leaves the mystery of the runtime idle power consumption
> being much higher with commit e130bc1d00a4.
Did you re-measure the runtime power? Do you have an unused PHY? It
could be it is not getting shut down. 1G PHYs can be quite power
hungry.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists