On 12.07.2024 10:45, Biju Das wrote: > Hi Claudiu, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 8:41 AM >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/11] i2c: riic: Enable runtime PM autosuspend support >> >> Hi, Biju, >> >> On 12.07.2024 10:15, Biju Das wrote: >>> Hi Claudiu, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 12:52 PM >>>> Subject: [PATCH v3 04/11] i2c: riic: Enable runtime PM autosuspend >>>> support >>>> >>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Enable runtime PM autosuspend support for the RIIC driver. With this, >>>> in case there are consecutive xfer requests the device wouldn't be >>>> runtime enabled/disabled after each consecutive xfer but after the >>>> the delay configured by user. With this, we can avoid touching >>>> hardware registers involved in runtime PM suspend/resume saving in this way some cycles. The >> default chosen autosuspend delay is zero to keep the previous driver behavior. >>> >>> On the other hand, you are saving power. Currently the driver is >>> highly optimized for Power usage. >>> >>> Before transfer turn on the clock >>> After transfer turn off the clock, this is the optimal power usage correspond to suspend delay. >>> >>> By adding suspend delay, you are consuming power corresponding to that >>> delay. >> >> The default delay is zero, see the following diff in this patch: >> >> @@ -479,6 +481,8 @@ static int riic_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> i2c_parse_fw_timings(dev, &i2c_t, true); >> >> + pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(dev, 0); > > I just provided justification, why you addes 0 msec here, compared to xx msec > in the original internal version. Isn't it in the commit description already? "The default chosen autosuspend delay is zero to keep the previous driver behavior." > > Cheers, > Biju
