Hi, The v5[1] of the series brought out some interesting discussions. The most important being is it worth adding the additional expense to all PM domains even if no wakeup pattern is available. It seems like maintaining a domain specific flag that the governor could check is a generic enough option. That should disable additional overhead for domains that do not need this feature. Ulf suggested that we could allow wakeups only if any of the domain idle state specifies a residency. However, we don't want to check for next wakeup everytime the domain enters idle just because the domain specifies an idle state with residency. This is also not desired. Also, if the domain checks for next wakeup, should the parent domains of the domain also check for next wakeup? And when do we set that up? These are questions that we don't know the answers yet. So, let's enable the domain governor only if the domain sets up the flag or when the device in the domain specifies the next wakeup. The previous post of the series explaining why this is a useful feature is v5[1]. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Lina [1]. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-arm-msm/msg75555.html Lina Iyer (3): PM / Domains: add domain feature flag for next wakeup PM / domains: inform PM domain of a device's next wakeup PM / Domains: use device's next wakeup to determine domain idle state drivers/base/power/domain.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++ drivers/base/power/domain_governor.c | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/pm_domain.h | 37 ++++++++-- 3 files changed, 183 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
