lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH/RFC v4 2/4] regulator: fixed: add regulator_ops members for suspend/resume
Date
Hi Mark,

> From: Mark Brown, Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 9:58 PM
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:42:26AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> > > From: Mark Brown, Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:39 PM
>
> Copying in Sudeep for the feedback on firmware interfaces.

Thank you very much for the discussion about the firmware.

> > > According to the changelog this is all about reflecting changes in the
> > > system state done by firmware but there's no interaction with firmware
> > > here which means this will be at best fragile. If we need to reflect
> > > changes in firmware configuration I'd expect there to be some
> > > interaction with firmware about how it is configured, or at least that
> > > the configuration would come from the same source.
>
> > I should have described background of previous patch series though,
> > according to previous discussion [1] the firmware side (like PSCI) is
> > also fragile unfortunately... So, I thought using regulator-off-in-suspend
> > in a regulator was better.
>
> > On other hand, Ulf is talking about either adding a property (perhaps like
> > regulator-off-in-suspend) into a regulator or just adding a new property
> > into MMC [2]. What do you think about Ulf' comment? I'm thinking
> > adding a new property "full-pwr-cycle-in-suspend" is the best solution.
> > This is because using a regulator property and reflecting a state of regulator without
> > firmware is fragile, as you said.
>
> TBH I worry about a property drifting out of sync with the firmware on
> systems where the firmware can be updated.

I understood it.

> Personally my default
> assumption would always be that we're going to loose power for anything
> except the RAM and whatever is needed for wake sources during suspend so
> I find the discussion a bit surprising but in any case that seems like a
> better option than trying to shoehorn things in the way the series here
> did.

Thank you for your comment! So, I'll make such a patch series later.

> Like I said in my earlier replies if this is done through the
> regulator API I'd expect it to be via the suspend interface.

I don't intend to use any regulator API for this issue for now.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAMuHMdXjU7N4oG89YsozGijMpjgKGN6ezw2qm6FeGX=JyRhsvg@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > [2]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAPDyKFpiBU1D+a7zb+Ggm0_HZ+YR4=LXJZ5MPytXtT=uBEdjPA@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Yoshihiro Shimoda
> >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-30 10:30    [W:0.146 / U:2.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site