On Thu, Nov 19 2020 at 02:57 -0700, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 16:57, Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 03:34 -0700, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 17:51, Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10 2020 at 03:02 -0700, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 18:41, Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 09 2020 at 08:27 -0700, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >> >On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 17:48, Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> [...]
What you are suggesting is that, we should not power down the domain in
such a case. This would be a really hard problem to debug when a device
leaves a stale wakeup behind and we no longer power off the domain
because of that. Tracking that back to the device will be a monumental
effort. Ignoring the next wakeup though might involve a power/perf
penalty (no worse than today), but we would not have a difficult problem
to solve.
Hmm, you have a good point!
Additionally, I guess it should be a rather seldom situation, as in
principle the wakeup irq should have been triggered already.
That said, I am okay to stick with your suggested approach.
Although, please add a comment in the code, to make it clear that the
behaviour is deliberate. Perhaps we should also clarify the function
description of dev_pm_genpd_set_next_wakeup() (in patch1) to make the
behaviour more clear for the user.
Sure, will update with comments.
Let's revisit the patch again after I repost, to make sure this is what
we want, atleast for now.
Thanks for your review, Ulf.
--Lina
