On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 08:28:22PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 10.06.2023 20:00, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 10:19:25PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> Up until now, for some reason we've only been setting bandwidth values > >> on the active-only context. That pretty much meant that RPM could lift > >> all votes when entering sleep mode. Or never sleep at all. > >> > >> That in turn could potentially break things like USB wakeup, as the > >> connection between APSS and SNoC/PNoC would simply be dead. > >> > > > > Nitpick: Apparently an "active" vote is applied during both active+sleep > > until the first "sleep" vote is sent. It's documented only for > > regulators [1] but I would expect the same applies to the bandwidths. > > This means actual breakage shouldn't have been possible. > ..unless some part of the boot chain voted for the sleep set! > > I'm not sure whether the regulator comment also holds for bw, but I > also don't really have a great way to check it.. Would you want me to > alter this commit message somehow? > Hm. Well, on a second look you used "could" instead of "definitely does" everywhere in your commit message. There is a indeed a slight chance so feel free to just keep it as-is. :D Thanks, Stephan
