On Thu 2017-06-22 10:51:02, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 21/06/2017 at 16:55:04 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > That is conceivable, but again, the meaning of STANDBY and MEM is
> > > platform-specific.  Actions to be taken for, say, STANDBY, may differ
> > > from one platform to another.
> > 
> > True, though I would only expect drivers for that particular platform to
> > care about that information and these drivers would only make sense on
> > that particular platform so the meaning of STANDBY and MEM would be
> > clear for those drivers. The intent is really to keep the "distributed"
> > model where individual drivers manage their particular piece of HW,
> > while utilizing a global piece of information that is platform specific.
> > 
> > If this seems acceptable to you along with proper documentation to
> > illustrate the platform specific meaning of these states, I will got
> > ahead and cook a patch.
> 
> Well, that won't work for us. We need need two kind of information:
>  - whether main clock is switched from the master clock to the slow
>    clock
>  - whether VDDcore will be cut
> 
> for the first one, we already have an hackish callback:
> at91_suspend_entering_slow_clock() that will call from the platform
> specific drivers.

Sounds like you need another "will_vddcore_be_cut?()" callback, not
"int platform_suspend_target_state(void)".

And actually I'd hope you have some kind of regulator, so that "will
this regulator be available over suspend" question can be asked?

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html