Hi Paul,
On 2022/7/14 上午12:08, Paul Cercueil wrote:
Hi Mike,
[...]
If I comment the "wait" instruction, it will exit the suspend process
immediately. And yes, I don't think it suspended properly.
Ok. I was suggesting to try that since it would show if the crash
happens when a particular device gets suspended.
Are you certain that your wakeup IRQ is unmasked?
[...]
I'm afraid the above didn't work for me. Have you tested
suspend-to-ram in person on a X series SoC?
I didn't test on X-series, I mostly work with JZ. But that part of
the design didn't change since the JZ4740.
Cheers,
-Paul
To be honest, I never owned a board with a JZ series SoC. And sorry
for assuming the suspend-to-ram is unusable on all Ingenic SoCs.
IIRC, all the JZ series SoCs have external DRAM, while the X series
SoCs have internal DRAM. Also Ingenic advertised the power saving
features of the X series SoCs heavily. Things might be different
since it may involve additional power management.
Even if the 3.x method you were describing works, the currently
upstream method should work as well, and if it doesn't, we probably
should try to figure why.
I remember doing some tests on the JZ4770 some years ago, and I would
get a power consumption of 7mA when suspended - that's for the whole
board, measured at the 3.7V battery, so about 0.026 W. The only things
powered ON then are the RAM chips and the SoC's RTC module.
At the time of writing the last sentence of the email, Dr. Zhou just
pointed out that it may has something to do with the secure boot
feature introduced in the X series SoC, although the feature is not
enabled. I already mailed my X1000E & X1501 boards to Dr. Zhou for
further tests. You may want to get a X1000(E) board (e.g. halley2)
and test this by yourself.
I do have a Cu1000-Neo board, but I have never used it, I wouldn't
know how to test this.
The CU1000-Neo board does not lead out the wakeup pins, maybe it can be
tested with GKD350 (X1830)?
Thanks and best regards!
Cheers,
-Paul
