* Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> [231128 04:05]: > Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > * Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@xxxxxxxxxxx> [231124 10:39]: > >> On Fri Nov 24, 2023 at 6:37 AM CET, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> Checking the code confirms this behavior. Grep for the macro > >> genpd_is_active_wakeup rather than GENPD_FLAG_ACTIVE_WAKEUP. It gets > >> used twice (suspend & resume), both in the same manner: > >> > >> if (device_wakeup_path(dev) && genpd_is_active_wakeup(genpd)) > >> > >> This means this flag won't have any impact on runtime PM handling of > >> power-domains. By the way, other users of the flag enable it at PD > >> registration & don't touch it afterwards. > > > > Setting GENPD_FLAG_ACTIVE_WAKEUP will block deeper idle states for > > the SoC most likely. > > It doesn't affect idle states. It only affects suspend states. > > As Théo pointed out, system-wide suspend will ignores runtime PM > refcounts, so IMO, using this flag is the right approach. But it still blocks the deeper SoC suspend states if set, right? If so, it should be dynamically toggled depending on the console_suspend flag. Regards, Tony
