On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 06:33:35PM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Jun 2014, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 07:15:16PM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >> > > >> > > ...__[EXEC]__|__[PREP]--|__[ENTRY]__|__[IDLE]__|___[EXIT]_--|__[EXEC]__... >> > > | | | | | >> > > |<-- entry-latency --->| >> > > |<- exit- ->| >> > > | latency | >> > > |<-------------- min-residency --------------->| >> > > |<----- worst_wakeup_latency ------>| >> > > >> > > entry-latency: Worst case latency required to enter the idle state. The >> > > exit_latency may be guaranteed only after entry-latency has passed. >> > > >> > > min-residency: Minimum period, including preparation, entry and exit, >> > > for a given power mode to be worthwhile energy wise. It must be at >> > > least equal to entry_latency + exit_latency. > > Ok, a minor tweak to the diagram above, min-residency should include > energy costs related to idle entry and exit, but not the exit-latency > itself, as long as the energy costs implied by exiting the state are > factored out in the min-residency-us property. This makes sense to me.. It includes accounting for the energy cost vs WFI of prep/entry/exit, but timing is from the end of the previous exec, until the event is expected to trigger. Thanks! Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
