Hi Ulf,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11 December 2017 at 11:48, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 10 December 2017 at 11:16, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> To complicate matters, some drivers may be used on SoCs where the device
>>>> needs to be kept running (clock and/or power domain), and on SoCs where the
>>>> device is always running. This difference is typically handled by genpd,
>>>> and the device driver may not even be aware. Of course the driver can just
>>>> set IN_BAND_WAKEUP regardless, (else it has to check for the presence of
>>>> clocks and/or power-domains properties itself, duplicating genpd
>>>> core/driver code).
>>>>
>>>> So what about
>>>>
>>>> if (IN_BAND_WAKEUP ||
>>>> (GENPD_FLAG_ACTIVE_WAKEUP && !OUT_BAND_WAKEUP)) {
>>>
>>> We don't want to suspend the device in case of IN_BAND_WAKEUP, right!?
>>>
>>>> ... suspend device...
>>>> }
>>
>> Oops, inverted logic. I should not write technical emails on Sunday morning.
>>
>> Yes, the device must be kept awake if either IN_BAND_WAKEUP is set, or
>> if GENPD_FLAG_ACTIVE_WAKEUP is set but OUT_BAND_WAKEUP isn't.
>
> Putting together the pieces of information received here, you have
> convinced me that we should stick to use the current
> GENPD_FLAG_ACTIVE_WAKEUP for now, which allows genpds to opt-in for
> start dealing with in-band-wakeups.
Thank you!
So I'll move forward with "[PATCH v2 0/3] PM / Domain: renesas: Fix active
wakeup behavior"
(https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg19941.html)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
