Hi Alex,
On 2017/2/5 23:13, Alex Lemberg wrote:
Hi Shawn,
On 2/5/17, 3:43 AM, "Shawn Lin" <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hmm.
>
> Shouldn't we abort (return -EBUSY) also in the system PM suspend case
> and not only for runtime PM suspend?
I would rather we don't abort runtime PM, but do it for system PM
instead. What we do for runtime PM is just for saving power for
our hosts including manipulating clock and genpd etc.. Thus we don't
touch any power-supply for eMMC. If so, it could still be possible
for eMMC firmware to work on doing bkops in rpm context.
If I understand correctly, you are suggesting do not send SLEEP command
on Runtime Suspend?
yes.
If so, and if mmc host does not touch any power supply for eMMC,
the device can continue doing Auto BKOPS during Runtime Suspend.
The question is why the Sleep command is sent now,
in the original implementation?
I assume it is sent for saving a power from the device side as well?
right, it was invented with the cap of MMC_CAP_AGGRESSIVE_PM, so some
platforms ask for the aggressive power policy will send sleep command
to the cards in rpm context. So I assume they care power-saving more
than others.
N�����r��y���b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{��g"��^n�r���z���h����&�� �G���h�(�階�ݢj"���m�����z�ޖ���f���h���~�mml==
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
