Re: Drivers taking different actions depending on sleep state

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 03:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I read the "Sleep States" documentation:
>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/power/states.txt
>>>
>>> It mentions /sys/power/mem_sleep but I don't have that in 4.9
>>> # ll /sys/power/
>>> -rw-r--r--    1 root     root          4096 Jan  1 00:31 pm_async
>>> -rw-r--r--    1 root     root          4096 Jan  1 00:31 pm_freeze_timeout
>>> -rw-r--r--    1 root     root          4096 Jan  1 00:31 state
>>> -rw-r--r--    1 root     root          4096 Jan  1 00:31 wakeup_count
>>>
>>> # cat /sys/power/state
>>> freeze mem
>>>
>>> Currently my platform's "mem" is a true suspend-to-RAM trigger,
>>> where drivers are supposed to save their state (register values
>>> will be lost), then Linux hands control over to firmware which
>>> enables RAM self-refresh and powers the chip down. When the system
>>> resumes, drivers restore their state from their copy in memory.
>>>
>>> One driver is responsible for loading/unloading microcode running
>>> on the DSPs. This operation is required only when powering down
>>> the chip, but it should be avoided for "low-latency" sleeps.
>>>
>>> The problem is that, if I understand correctly, drivers have no way
>>> of knowing which sleep state is being entered/exited?
>>>
>>> How can I have the microcode driver take different decisions
>>> based on the sleep state?
>>
>> The cleanest way would be to run that code from one of the platform
>> suspend hooks that receive information on what sleep state is to be
>> entered.
>
> I am not sure this would be cleaner, because that would create a tighter
> dependency between different drivers, each of them having their
> suspend/resume routings and the driver that implements the
> platform_suspend_ops, that could also create some nice layering
> violations and some difficult to solve dependencies.
>
>>
>> Alternatively, those hooks can set/clear flags that can be accessed by
>> drivers, but that of course may your drivers depend on the platform
>> (still, in the microcode case the driver seems to be
>> platform-dependent anyway).
>
> It may be platform dependent, but the actual system-wide suspend/resume
> implementations can vary a lot. For example you may have started with
> some particular CPU architecture on your platforms, with one driver
> implementing an instance of platform_suspend_ops, and then as you moved
> to another CPU architecture, some of that could be managed by a generic
> driver (e.g: ARM SCPI, ACPI etc. etc.).
>
> The same HW blocks are likely to be present on these different SoCs, and
> have the same requirements where they need to see a slightly different
> path taken on suspend/resume. If we have to patch both the "legacy"
> platform_suspend_ops, and the "new" platform_suspend_ops that does not
> really scale.
>
> Would it be that much of a stretch if we reflected e.g:
> PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY, PM_SUSPEND_MEM into the pm_message_t that is
> communicated to platform_driver::suspend and platform_driver::resume?

I'm not sure what you mean, really.

The ->suspend callback in struct platform_driver has been long deprecated.

Thanks,
Rafael