+ Venkat Hi Balaji On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, T Krishnamoorthy, Balaji wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> wrote: > > "T Krishnamoorthy, Balaji" <balajitk@xxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> I have seen some instabilities if delay is very less, on some > >> production boards. The previous implementation used 100ms delay > >> before disabling the clocks. > > > > And your new one is using 50ms. How did this value come about? > > I don't have any specific affinity to this number, but when requests are > bursty, they arrive within a few 10s of ms within each other. Didn't > want to have the context/save restore penalty associated with every > request. Kevin and I just chatted a little bit about this. It seems best to separate the work done on the autosuspend timeout from the runtime PM conversion. So how about this: please send a new version of these patches with the previous value, 100ms, for the autosuspend timeout. That should hopefully minimize the behavior change here for existing users. And hopefully we'll be able to get the series in for this merge window. Then later, we need to come back to this autosuspend timeout issue. - Paul
