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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 9B1C4C56201 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A16B2224A for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mg.codeaurora.org header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.b="sw4TIu95" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728705AbgKSPrX (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:47:23 -0500 Received: from m42-4.mailgun.net ([69.72.42.4]:40592 "EHLO m42-4.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727428AbgKSPrX (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:47:23 -0500 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1605800842; h=In-Reply-To: Content-Type: MIME-Version: References: Message-ID: Subject: Cc: To: From: Date: Sender; bh=ELgx2uYswVqizONE6wXjsqFy6Y7WtmIS7nO1pn1KocE=; b=sw4TIu95wi7CLo1v4O6cESKHvUkEOWPXfVsesthHmWYzbE9AjUIEeCT+XZgtcrdqq0SZt0wO 1pau/XHlOeaRayql/nP7mGiJ4FEjH+XJzdEEPY1TXeMo89MXPNY27axYcZB+vpGOcB3/+Mdo fuiDObfmymH4ebjfRvAvoG6QRJs= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.42.4 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI5ZDFmMiIsICJsaW51eC1wbUB2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmciLCAiYmU5ZTRhIl0= Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n03.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 5fb69384a5a29b56a17343cb (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:47:16 GMT Sender: ilina=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id F25F9C43464; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ilina) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF8D9C43465; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:47:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org EF8D9C43465 Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=ilina@codeaurora.org Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:47:13 -0700 From: Lina Iyer To: Ulf Hansson Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM , linux-arm-msm Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] PM / Domains: use device's next wakeup to determine domain idle state Message-ID: References: <20201106164811.3698-1-ilina@codeaurora.org> <20201106164811.3698-3-ilina@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 19 2020 at 02:57 -0700, Ulf Hansson wrote: >On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 16:57, Lina Iyer wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 03:34 -0700, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 17:51, Lina Iyer wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10 2020 at 03:02 -0700, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >> >On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 18:41, Lina Iyer wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 09 2020 at 08:27 -0700, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >> >> >On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 17:48, Lina Iyer wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> What you are suggesting is that, we should not power down the domain in >> such a case. This would be a really hard problem to debug when a device >> leaves a stale wakeup behind and we no longer power off the domain >> because of that. Tracking that back to the device will be a monumental >> effort. Ignoring the next wakeup though might involve a power/perf >> penalty (no worse than today), but we would not have a difficult problem >> to solve. > >Hmm, you have a good point! > >Additionally, I guess it should be a rather seldom situation, as in >principle the wakeup irq should have been triggered already. > >That said, I am okay to stick with your suggested approach. > >Although, please add a comment in the code, to make it clear that the >behaviour is deliberate. Perhaps we should also clarify the function >description of dev_pm_genpd_set_next_wakeup() (in patch1) to make the >behaviour more clear for the user. > Sure, will update with comments. >> Let's revisit the patch again after I repost, to make sure this is what we want, atleast for now. Thanks for your review, Ulf. --Lina