On 14 December 2017 at 11:52, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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)
Yes! I just added my reviewed-by tag to these.
Kind regards
Uffe
