Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-08-10 16:11:10) > On Tue 10 Aug 14:18 CDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-08-10 10:24:32) > > > On 2021-08-09 23:28, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > Quoting Deepak Kumar Singh (2021-08-09 04:05:08) > > > >> > > > >> On 8/6/2021 1:10 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > >> > Quoting Deepak Kumar Singh (2021-08-05 09:17:33) > > > >> >> Some use cases require SMP2P interrupts to wake up the host > > > >> >> from suspend. > > > >> > Please elaborate on this point so we understand what sort of scenarios > > > >> > want to wakeup from suspend. > > > >> > > > >> Once such scenario is where WiFi/modem crashes and notifies crash to > > > >> local host through smp2p > > > >> > > > >> if local host is in suspend it should wake up to handle the crash and > > > >> reboot the WiFi/modem. > > > > > > > > Does anything go wrong if the firmware crashes during suspend and the > > > > local host doesn't handle it until it wakes for some other reason? I'd > > > > like to understand if the crash handling can be delayed/combined with > > > > another wakeup. > > > > > > If the modem firmware crashes > > > during suspend, the system comes > > > out of xo-shutdown and AFAIK stays > > > there until we handle the interrupt. > > > > > > > So you're saying we waste power if we don't wakeup the AP and leave the > > SoC in a shallow low power state? That would be good to have indicated > > in the code via a comment and in the commit text so we know that we want > > to handle the wakeup by default. > > Sounds like in a system without autosleep (or userspace equivalent) it > would be desirable to leave the SoC in this lower state than to wake up > the system handle the crash and then just idle? > > But leaving the system in this state will result in you missing your > important phone calls... > Yes I think we should just add a comment to the code and commit text and move on.
