On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 04:42:23PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 07:31:50PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 03:19:51PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 06:22:32PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > Why would you need PCIe gen1 speed during suspend? > > > > That's what the suggestion I got from Qcom PCIe team. But I didn't compare the > > value you added during icc support patch with downstream. More below... > > > > > These numbers are already somewhat random as, for example, the vendor > > > driver is requesting 500 kBps (800 peak) during runtime, while we are > > > now requesting five times that during suspend (the vendor driver gets a > > > away with 0). > > > > Hmm, then I should've asked you this question when you added icc support. > > I thought you inherited those values from downstream but apparently not. > > Even in downstream they are using different bw votes for different platforms. > > I will touch base with PCIe and ICC teams to find out the actual value that > > needs to be used. > > We discussed things at length at the time, but perhaps it was before you > joined to project. Yeah, could be. > As I alluded to above, we should not play the game of > using arbitrary numbers but instead fix the interconnect driver so that > it can map the interconnect values in kBps to something that makes sense > for the Qualcomm hardware. Anything else is not acceptable for upstream. > Agree. I've started the discussion regarding this and will get back once I have answers. - Mani > Johan -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
