All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:53:14 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <df07e546-34a3-b03f-7c9d-248b8d7fb756@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdVTEbqEocYwu=KW_uXpykYkVwUgSJBnLvQp_Epn8Pjp1g@mail.gmail.com>



On 23/02/17 15:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 22/02/17 13:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/17 01:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:45:13 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>> Geert, so far you have failed to explain what's different from the new
>>>> state you are adding and the existing s2idle.
>>>
>>> I did explain, cfr.:
>>>   1. The power consumption figures in the cover letter:
>>>       - shallow:    8.4 W   6.2 W   (secondary CPU cores off)
>>
>> That's because your CPU_SUSPEND implementation is incomplete. You can
>> enter the same state as secondary CPU core off even with idle. It's just
>> that we can save by not entering and exiting the CPU hotplug state
>> machine. So this "shallow" state can be achieved if your CPU_SUSPEND
>> implements that state.
> 
> Does that include power areas?
> 

OK, I first I didn't understand what you are referring here but I see
some reference further in the email.

>>>   2. The description for patch 3/6:
>>>         As secondary CPU cores are taken offline, "shallow" suspend mode saves
>>>         slightly more power than "s2idle", but less than "deep" suspend mode.
>>>         However, unlike "deep" suspend mode, "shallow" suspend mode can be used
>>>         regardless of the presence of support for PSCI_SYSTEM_SUSPEND, which is
>>>         an optional API in PSCI v1.0.
>>
>> Yes I understood that, you need to add an extra idle states to get that
>> shallow state. We have discussed this in past to depth. On ARM64/PSCI,
>> we will that support "shallow" system suspend mode which can't be
>> defined generically. Also we can support this shallow state with s2idle.
>>
>> Your system probably not supporting all the CPU idle states. E.g.: it
>> may just support CPU ON/OFF/RET and not cluster ON/OFF/RET. Please add
>> that state to CPU_SUSPEND implementation in the firmware.
> 
> I can find CPU_ON and CPU_OFF in the PSCI specification, but not
> CPU_RET?
> 

No, they were just examples of idle states that CPU_SUSPEND call might
support based on what h/w can support on a particular platform.

> How is the cluster ON/OFF/RET called exactly? I can't find any CLUSTER_*
> calls in the PSCI specification.
> 

CPU_SUSPEND with different parameters, just look at the details on
suspend parameters in Section 5.4.2 CPU_SUSPEND parameters: power_state


> From a quick glance in the PSCI sources, there's some support for powering
> down clusters.
> 

Yes, the above section should provide some insight on the same.

>>> Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear. Let's summarize:
>>>   1. On Renesas R-Car Gen3 platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND is implemented,
>>
>> OK got that.
>>
>>>   2. On these platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND powers down the SoC, and supports
>>>      wake-up from PMIC only,
>>
>> OK
>>
>>>   3. If the user wants to use a different wake-up source, these other
>>> wake-up sources fail to wake up the system from PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND.
>>
>> In that case don't enter PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND
> 
> Or prevent the system from doing that...
> 

Agreed.

>>>   4. Patch 3/6 adds a new "shallow" state, as it allows to save more
>>> power (the difference may be due to suboptimal cpuidle platform support on R-Car Gen3, though),
>>
>> Why can't you do that in s2idle mode. Please give me the difference
>> between your shallow state and s2idle state, not just power numbers
>> but the actual state of CPUs and the devices in the system.
> 
> From the Linux side, there's not much difference, except that the secondary
> CPU cores are disabled.  As that is handled by PSCI, the difference may be
> in the PSCI implementation.  I will have to check that...
> 

Yes it's better to check. I am afraid that both these states will be
same if PSCI implementation is correct and hence we don't want to
support standby suspend mode.

> On these SoCs, the individual CPU cores and the SCU/L2 are in separate
> (nested) power areas.  Perhaps these power areas are turned off when
> disabling the CPU cores, but not when suspending them.
> 

Yes that's what I suspect and hence I said it's incomplete
implementation of CPU_SUSPEND

>>> E.g. on non-PSCI platforms with an Ethernet driver that supports
>>> Wake-on-LAN, I can do:
>>>
>>>         ethtool -s eth0 wol g
>>>         echo mem > /sys/power/state
>>>
>>> and be sure that the system can be woken up by sending a WoL MagicPacket.
>>
>> Still possible with s2idle if CPU_SUSPEND is correctly implemented by
>> the platform.
> 
> Sure. But not automatic, as it needs fiddling with mem_sleep.
> 

Yes that's true form any thing other than "deep" state. i.e. s2idle or
standby. If you are OK to choose standby why not s2idle ?

>>> On PSCI systems, the above may work, or may not work. And there's no way to
>>> find out (in an automated way) whether it will work or not.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't work, the user has to configure his system (manually) to
>>> not use "mem" state.
>>> Since v4.10-rc1, that can be done using e.g.
>>>
>>>     echo s2idle > /sys/power/mem_sleep
>>>
>>> and my patches make that automatic (for a new "shallow" state instead
>>> of "s2idle", though).
>>
>> How is that ? If "deep" is available as in your case too, why will
>> shallow become default. IIUC the user still have to write "shallow"
>> to mem_sleep.
> 
> After patch 4, if needed (DT property + extra wake-up sources configured),
> psci_system_suspend_enter() will call cpu_do_idle() instead of
> psci_system_suspend(). No need to fiddle with mem_sleep manually.
> 

I understand your intentions and but I have NACKed it with sufficient
reasoning. I don't want to repeat them again here.

>> Does this platform use generic arm64 DT cpuidle driver ? I don't see so
>> from the DT.
> 
> I think that task isn't complete yet.
>

So, all these hacks are just to cope up with that ? Sorry that's
non-sense. Working around a firmware bug is different from working
around the incomplete firmware implementation. We may consider former
but for me latter is just insane.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:53:14 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <df07e546-34a3-b03f-7c9d-248b8d7fb756@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdVTEbqEocYwu=KW_uXpykYkVwUgSJBnLvQp_Epn8Pjp1g@mail.gmail.com>



On 23/02/17 15:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 22/02/17 13:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/17 01:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:45:13 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>> Geert, so far you have failed to explain what's different from the new
>>>> state you are adding and the existing s2idle.
>>>
>>> I did explain, cfr.:
>>>   1. The power consumption figures in the cover letter:
>>>       - shallow:    8.4 W   6.2 W   (secondary CPU cores off)
>>
>> That's because your CPU_SUSPEND implementation is incomplete. You can
>> enter the same state as secondary CPU core off even with idle. It's just
>> that we can save by not entering and exiting the CPU hotplug state
>> machine. So this "shallow" state can be achieved if your CPU_SUSPEND
>> implements that state.
> 
> Does that include power areas?
> 

OK, I first I didn't understand what you are referring here but I see
some reference further in the email.

>>>   2. The description for patch 3/6:
>>>         As secondary CPU cores are taken offline, "shallow" suspend mode saves
>>>         slightly more power than "s2idle", but less than "deep" suspend mode.
>>>         However, unlike "deep" suspend mode, "shallow" suspend mode can be used
>>>         regardless of the presence of support for PSCI_SYSTEM_SUSPEND, which is
>>>         an optional API in PSCI v1.0.
>>
>> Yes I understood that, you need to add an extra idle states to get that
>> shallow state. We have discussed this in past to depth. On ARM64/PSCI,
>> we will that support "shallow" system suspend mode which can't be
>> defined generically. Also we can support this shallow state with s2idle.
>>
>> Your system probably not supporting all the CPU idle states. E.g.: it
>> may just support CPU ON/OFF/RET and not cluster ON/OFF/RET. Please add
>> that state to CPU_SUSPEND implementation in the firmware.
> 
> I can find CPU_ON and CPU_OFF in the PSCI specification, but not
> CPU_RET?
> 

No, they were just examples of idle states that CPU_SUSPEND call might
support based on what h/w can support on a particular platform.

> How is the cluster ON/OFF/RET called exactly? I can't find any CLUSTER_*
> calls in the PSCI specification.
> 

CPU_SUSPEND with different parameters, just look at the details on
suspend parameters in Section 5.4.2 CPU_SUSPEND parameters: power_state


> From a quick glance in the PSCI sources, there's some support for powering
> down clusters.
> 

Yes, the above section should provide some insight on the same.

>>> Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear. Let's summarize:
>>>   1. On Renesas R-Car Gen3 platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND is implemented,
>>
>> OK got that.
>>
>>>   2. On these platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND powers down the SoC, and supports
>>>      wake-up from PMIC only,
>>
>> OK
>>
>>>   3. If the user wants to use a different wake-up source, these other
>>> wake-up sources fail to wake up the system from PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND.
>>
>> In that case don't enter PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND
> 
> Or prevent the system from doing that...
> 

Agreed.

>>>   4. Patch 3/6 adds a new "shallow" state, as it allows to save more
>>> power (the difference may be due to suboptimal cpuidle platform support on R-Car Gen3, though),
>>
>> Why can't you do that in s2idle mode. Please give me the difference
>> between your shallow state and s2idle state, not just power numbers
>> but the actual state of CPUs and the devices in the system.
> 
> From the Linux side, there's not much difference, except that the secondary
> CPU cores are disabled.  As that is handled by PSCI, the difference may be
> in the PSCI implementation.  I will have to check that...
> 

Yes it's better to check. I am afraid that both these states will be
same if PSCI implementation is correct and hence we don't want to
support standby suspend mode.

> On these SoCs, the individual CPU cores and the SCU/L2 are in separate
> (nested) power areas.  Perhaps these power areas are turned off when
> disabling the CPU cores, but not when suspending them.
> 

Yes that's what I suspect and hence I said it's incomplete
implementation of CPU_SUSPEND

>>> E.g. on non-PSCI platforms with an Ethernet driver that supports
>>> Wake-on-LAN, I can do:
>>>
>>>         ethtool -s eth0 wol g
>>>         echo mem > /sys/power/state
>>>
>>> and be sure that the system can be woken up by sending a WoL MagicPacket.
>>
>> Still possible with s2idle if CPU_SUSPEND is correctly implemented by
>> the platform.
> 
> Sure. But not automatic, as it needs fiddling with mem_sleep.
> 

Yes that's true form any thing other than "deep" state. i.e. s2idle or
standby. If you are OK to choose standby why not s2idle ?

>>> On PSCI systems, the above may work, or may not work. And there's no way to
>>> find out (in an automated way) whether it will work or not.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't work, the user has to configure his system (manually) to
>>> not use "mem" state.
>>> Since v4.10-rc1, that can be done using e.g.
>>>
>>>     echo s2idle > /sys/power/mem_sleep
>>>
>>> and my patches make that automatic (for a new "shallow" state instead
>>> of "s2idle", though).
>>
>> How is that ? If "deep" is available as in your case too, why will
>> shallow become default. IIUC the user still have to write "shallow"
>> to mem_sleep.
> 
> After patch 4, if needed (DT property + extra wake-up sources configured),
> psci_system_suspend_enter() will call cpu_do_idle() instead of
> psci_system_suspend(). No need to fiddle with mem_sleep manually.
> 

I understand your intentions and but I have NACKed it with sufficient
reasoning. I don't want to repeat them again here.

>> Does this platform use generic arm64 DT cpuidle driver ? I don't see so
>> from the DT.
> 
> I think that task isn't complete yet.
>

So, all these hacks are just to cope up with that ? Sorry that's
non-sense. Working around a firmware bug is different from working
around the incomplete firmware implementation. We may consider former
but for me latter is just insane.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:53:14 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <df07e546-34a3-b03f-7c9d-248b8d7fb756@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdVTEbqEocYwu=KW_uXpykYkVwUgSJBnLvQp_Epn8Pjp1g@mail.gmail.com>



On 23/02/17 15:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 22/02/17 13:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/17 01:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:45:13 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>> Geert, so far you have failed to explain what's different from the new
>>>> state you are adding and the existing s2idle.
>>>
>>> I did explain, cfr.:
>>>   1. The power consumption figures in the cover letter:
>>>       - shallow:    8.4 W   6.2 W   (secondary CPU cores off)
>>
>> That's because your CPU_SUSPEND implementation is incomplete. You can
>> enter the same state as secondary CPU core off even with idle. It's just
>> that we can save by not entering and exiting the CPU hotplug state
>> machine. So this "shallow" state can be achieved if your CPU_SUSPEND
>> implements that state.
> 
> Does that include power areas?
> 

OK, I first I didn't understand what you are referring here but I see
some reference further in the email.

>>>   2. The description for patch 3/6:
>>>         As secondary CPU cores are taken offline, "shallow" suspend mode saves
>>>         slightly more power than "s2idle", but less than "deep" suspend mode.
>>>         However, unlike "deep" suspend mode, "shallow" suspend mode can be used
>>>         regardless of the presence of support for PSCI_SYSTEM_SUSPEND, which is
>>>         an optional API in PSCI v1.0.
>>
>> Yes I understood that, you need to add an extra idle states to get that
>> shallow state. We have discussed this in past to depth. On ARM64/PSCI,
>> we will that support "shallow" system suspend mode which can't be
>> defined generically. Also we can support this shallow state with s2idle.
>>
>> Your system probably not supporting all the CPU idle states. E.g.: it
>> may just support CPU ON/OFF/RET and not cluster ON/OFF/RET. Please add
>> that state to CPU_SUSPEND implementation in the firmware.
> 
> I can find CPU_ON and CPU_OFF in the PSCI specification, but not
> CPU_RET?
> 

No, they were just examples of idle states that CPU_SUSPEND call might
support based on what h/w can support on a particular platform.

> How is the cluster ON/OFF/RET called exactly? I can't find any CLUSTER_*
> calls in the PSCI specification.
> 

CPU_SUSPEND with different parameters, just look at the details on
suspend parameters in Section 5.4.2 CPU_SUSPEND parameters: power_state


> From a quick glance in the PSCI sources, there's some support for powering
> down clusters.
> 

Yes, the above section should provide some insight on the same.

>>> Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear. Let's summarize:
>>>   1. On Renesas R-Car Gen3 platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND is implemented,
>>
>> OK got that.
>>
>>>   2. On these platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND powers down the SoC, and supports
>>>      wake-up from PMIC only,
>>
>> OK
>>
>>>   3. If the user wants to use a different wake-up source, these other
>>> wake-up sources fail to wake up the system from PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND.
>>
>> In that case don't enter PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND
> 
> Or prevent the system from doing that...
> 

Agreed.

>>>   4. Patch 3/6 adds a new "shallow" state, as it allows to save more
>>> power (the difference may be due to suboptimal cpuidle platform support on R-Car Gen3, though),
>>
>> Why can't you do that in s2idle mode. Please give me the difference
>> between your shallow state and s2idle state, not just power numbers
>> but the actual state of CPUs and the devices in the system.
> 
> From the Linux side, there's not much difference, except that the secondary
> CPU cores are disabled.  As that is handled by PSCI, the difference may be
> in the PSCI implementation.  I will have to check that...
> 

Yes it's better to check. I am afraid that both these states will be
same if PSCI implementation is correct and hence we don't want to
support standby suspend mode.

> On these SoCs, the individual CPU cores and the SCU/L2 are in separate
> (nested) power areas.  Perhaps these power areas are turned off when
> disabling the CPU cores, but not when suspending them.
> 

Yes that's what I suspect and hence I said it's incomplete
implementation of CPU_SUSPEND

>>> E.g. on non-PSCI platforms with an Ethernet driver that supports
>>> Wake-on-LAN, I can do:
>>>
>>>         ethtool -s eth0 wol g
>>>         echo mem > /sys/power/state
>>>
>>> and be sure that the system can be woken up by sending a WoL MagicPacket.
>>
>> Still possible with s2idle if CPU_SUSPEND is correctly implemented by
>> the platform.
> 
> Sure. But not automatic, as it needs fiddling with mem_sleep.
> 

Yes that's true form any thing other than "deep" state. i.e. s2idle or
standby. If you are OK to choose standby why not s2idle ?

>>> On PSCI systems, the above may work, or may not work. And there's no way to
>>> find out (in an automated way) whether it will work or not.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't work, the user has to configure his system (manually) to
>>> not use "mem" state.
>>> Since v4.10-rc1, that can be done using e.g.
>>>
>>>     echo s2idle > /sys/power/mem_sleep
>>>
>>> and my patches make that automatic (for a new "shallow" state instead
>>> of "s2idle", though).
>>
>> How is that ? If "deep" is available as in your case too, why will
>> shallow become default. IIUC the user still have to write "shallow"
>> to mem_sleep.
> 
> After patch 4, if needed (DT property + extra wake-up sources configured),
> psci_system_suspend_enter() will call cpu_do_idle() instead of
> psci_system_suspend(). No need to fiddle with mem_sleep manually.
> 

I understand your intentions and but I have NACKed it with sufficient
reasoning. I don't want to repeat them again here.

>> Does this platform use generic arm64 DT cpuidle driver ? I don't see so
>> from the DT.
> 
> I think that task isn't complete yet.
>

So, all these hacks are just to cope up with that ? Sorry that's
non-sense. Working around a firmware bug is different from working
around the incomplete firmware implementation. We may consider former
but for me latter is just insane.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-02-23 15:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 145+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-20 20:33 [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 1/6] alarmtimer: Postpone wake-up source registration until really available Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 2/6] PM / Wakeup: Add wakeup_source_available() Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow suspend mode Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 10:42   ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 10:42     ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:23     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:23       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:23       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:51       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:51         ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:51         ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 11:07   ` Pavel Machek
2017-02-21 11:07     ` Pavel Machek
2017-02-21 11:07     ` Pavel Machek
2017-02-21 11:14     ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 11:14       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 11:14       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:32       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:32         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:32         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:20         ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 17:20           ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 17:20           ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 17:20           ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 18:06           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 18:06             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 18:06             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 18:06             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 18:18             ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 18:18               ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 18:18               ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 18:23               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 18:23                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 18:23                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 18:23                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:22         ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 17:22           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 17:22           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 17:22           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 13:47           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 13:47             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 13:47             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:35             ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 14:35               ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 14:35               ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 4/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 10:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 10:50     ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:36     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:36       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:36       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:49       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:49         ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:49         ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 11:07   ` Pavel Machek
2017-02-21 11:07     ` Pavel Machek
2017-02-21 16:36     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:36       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:36       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:54     ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 17:54       ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 17:48   ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 17:48     ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-22 14:05     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:05       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:05       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:57       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 14:57         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 14:57         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 14:57         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 5/6] arm64: dts: r8a7795: Fix non-PMIC wake-up sources Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 6/6] arm64: dts: r8a7796: " Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 10:38 ` [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 10:38   ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:21   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:21     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:21     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:45     ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:45       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:45       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:45       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 17:34       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:34         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:34         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:51         ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 17:51           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 17:51           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:27           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:27             ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:27             ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:27             ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:45             ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:45               ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:45               ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:45               ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22  1:14               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22  1:14                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22  1:14                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 11:03                 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 11:03                   ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 11:03                   ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 13:38                   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 13:38                     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 13:38                     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:32                     ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 14:32                       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 14:32                       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 14:32                       ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 14:50                       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 14:50                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 14:50                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 14:50                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 15:24                         ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 15:24                           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 15:24                           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 15:24                           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-23 15:26                       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-23 15:26                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-23 15:26                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-23 15:34                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-23 15:34                           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-23 15:34                           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-23 15:58                           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-23 15:58                             ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-23 15:58                             ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-23 15:53                         ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2017-02-23 15:53                           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-23 15:53                           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-23 15:53                           ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 13:14                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 13:14                   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 13:14                   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:31                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 14:31                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 14:31                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 14:31                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=df07e546-34a3-b03f-7c9d-248b8d7fb756@arm.com \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=lina.iyer@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.