From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Hansson Subject: Re: PM regression with commit 5de85b9d57ab PM runtime re-init in v4.5-rc1 Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 07:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20160205010810.GR19432@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:33865 "EHLO mail-yk0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751884AbcBEGyG (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2016 01:54:06 -0500 Received: by mail-yk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u9so55701340ykd.1 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 22:54:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160205010810.GR19432@atomide.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Alan Stern , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kevin Hilman , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux OMAP Mailing List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On 5 February 2016 at 02:08, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Ulf Hansson [160204 14:35]: >> On 4 February 2016 at 23:09, Alan Stern wrote: >> > On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > >> >> I am really not questioning the autosuspend feature at all, it's a >> >> really great feature! >> >> >> >> Now, I question the minor benefit we actually gain from having the >> >> runtime PM core to update the mark in rpm_resume(). >> > >> > As Tony pointed out, it prevents some devices from going to sleep right >> > away. >> >> Because their drivers don't care to update the last busy mark!? > > Nope. Without that devices may never resume at all so the drivers > can't do anything about it. I don't get it. Why not? Because of another abuse of the runtime PM API? Or we should probably continue to focus on fixing the regression. :-) Kind regards Uffe From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ulf.hansson@linaro.org (Ulf Hansson) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 07:54:04 +0100 Subject: PM regression with commit 5de85b9d57ab PM runtime re-init in v4.5-rc1 In-Reply-To: <20160205010810.GR19432@atomide.com> References: <20160205010810.GR19432@atomide.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 5 February 2016 at 02:08, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Ulf Hansson [160204 14:35]: >> On 4 February 2016 at 23:09, Alan Stern wrote: >> > On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > >> >> I am really not questioning the autosuspend feature at all, it's a >> >> really great feature! >> >> >> >> Now, I question the minor benefit we actually gain from having the >> >> runtime PM core to update the mark in rpm_resume(). >> > >> > As Tony pointed out, it prevents some devices from going to sleep right >> > away. >> >> Because their drivers don't care to update the last busy mark!? > > Nope. Without that devices may never resume at all so the drivers > can't do anything about it. I don't get it. Why not? Because of another abuse of the runtime PM API? Or we should probably continue to focus on fixing the regression. :-) Kind regards Uffe