From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE06C432C0 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:35:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBA12071C for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:35:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726574AbfKVRfx (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:35:53 -0500 Received: from mailbackend.panix.com ([166.84.1.89]:62865 "EHLO mailbackend.panix.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726046AbfKVRfx (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:35:53 -0500 Received: from hp-x360n.lan (ip68-111-223-64.sd.sd.cox.net [68.111.223.64]) by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47KNr6333Vz1G1Z; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:35:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:35:49 -0800 (PST) From: "Kenneth R. Crudup" Reply-To: "Kenneth R. Crudup" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Rafael Wysocki , Linux PM Subject: Re: Help me fix a regression caused by 56b9918490 (PM: sleep: Simplify suspend-to-idle control flow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 22 Nov 2019, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > - Randomly, if left suspended, nothing other than a hard power off will get > > > > it back ... It appears "ec_no_wakeup=1" doesn't have this issue > BTW, is the ec_no_wakeup=1 workaround still effective? I'm pretty sure that's always effective, but: > If so, does the lid and/or power button wake up the system from > suspend with ec_no_wakeup=1? No, hitting a key on the keyboard is the only thing that wakes it up. This actually isn't a bad thing for me at all- but as per my previous E-mail I'm trying to determine the cause for the occasional much higher suspended idle draw and I was thinking using these workarounds means I'm not taking advantage of all the suspend optimisations you've added. That being said, I do have "XHC" disabled as a wakeup source (written to /proc/acpi/wakeup) else BT mouse movement would wake this thing up. -Kenny -- Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Silicon Valley