[Public] > -----Original Message----- > From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 04:24 > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Box David E <david.e.box@xxxxxxxxx>; jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx; > pavel@xxxxxx; svenva@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Rajneesh Bhardwaj > <irenic.rajneesh@xxxxxxxxx>; S-k, Shyam-sundar <Shyam-sundar.S- > k@xxxxxxx>; rrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Jain Rajat <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx>; > hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx; Mark Gross <markgross@xxxxxxxxxx>; platform- > driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] platform/x86/intel/pmc: core: Report duration of > time in HW sleep state > > On Wed, 12 Apr 2023, Mario Limonciello wrote: > > > intel_pmc_core displays a warning when the module parameter > > `warn_on_s0ix_failures` is set and a suspend didn't get to a HW sleep > > state. > > > > Report this to the standard kernel reporting infrastructure so that > > userspace software can query after the suspend cycle is done. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > v7->v8: > > * Report max sleep as well > > --- > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c > b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c > > index 925c5d676a43..f9677104353d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c > > @@ -1153,6 +1153,7 @@ static int pmc_core_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > > pmc_core_do_dmi_quirks(pmcdev); > > > > pmc_core_dbgfs_register(pmcdev); > > + pm_report_max_hw_sleep(((1UL << 32) - 1) * > pmc_core_adjust_slp_s0_step(pmcdev, 1)); > > Technically this is FIELD_MAX(SLP_S0_RES_COUNTER_MASK) * > pmc_core_adjust...? > Where the define is: > #define SLP_S0_RES_COUNTER_MASK GENMASK(31, 0) That's fine by me to switch it over, it certainly makes it a lot more readable. I took the value from @Box David E to use suggested in v7, so what are your thoughts? The current version has an overflow error reported by the robot for i386, so it definitely needs some sort of change. > > > > > device_initialized = true; > > dev_info(&pdev->dev, " initialized\n"); > > @@ -1214,6 +1215,8 @@ static inline bool pmc_core_is_s0ix_failed(struct > pmc_dev *pmcdev) > > if (pmc_core_dev_state_get(pmcdev, &s0ix_counter)) > > return false; > > > > + pm_report_hw_sleep_time((u32)(s0ix_counter - pmcdev- > >s0ix_counter)); > > + > > if (s0ix_counter == pmcdev->s0ix_counter) > > return true; > > > > > > -- > i.
