On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:24:26AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
> On 09.01.2019 18:57, Mark Brown wrote:

> > regulator state which feels fragile.  But based on the cover letter
> > that's kind of like what the initial proposal about target states was so
> > perhaps this is the way we end up going... 

> Are you talking about [1] ?

I can't follow that link right now, I'm working offline.

> I can get rid of this patch, take advantage of [3] and [4] and introduce
> also the regulator standby states. In this case, no matter the mapping b/w
> Linux power saving modes and AT91 SoC's power saving modes, we will be
> covered on misconfiguration (at least on SAMA5D2 Xplained board).

> And in patch 3/3 I could get rid of regulator checks and rely on DT (bad
> thing would be that in case of no input for regulator's state in
> mem/standby the board could not properly suspended/resumed), if any.

> What do you think about this?

Like I say I'm working offline so I can't check the links but it sounds
like you're saying that the existing suspend mode configuration features
are enough for your systems?  If so that's great - certainly what you're
saying above sounds sensible to me but it's possible I misunderstood
something based on not having the links.