Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751901AbbH0U4K (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:56:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]:33720 "EHLO mail-pa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751276AbbH0U4I (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:56:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:56:05 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Heiko Stuebner Cc: Doug Anderson , "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Brian Norris , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandru M Stan Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: rockchip: correct regulator PM properties Message-ID: <20150827205605.GA42154@google.com> References: <1439923455-109818-1-git-send-email-briannorris@chromium.org> <10828643.SSUS2EOuvv@phil> <2079050.z559I6SEaj@phil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2079050.z559I6SEaj@phil> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1506 Lines: 38 On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:51:22PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 27. August 2015, 12:30:51 schrieb Doug Anderson: > > If I understand correctly, the distinction between "standby" and "mem" > > is not too clearly defined, so if we wanted to use it for this it > > wouldn't be terrible? I never understood many clear definitions here either, personally. > From reading Documentation/power/states.txt it looks like the boot-cpu is > supposed to retain power in the suspend state. Although we also do not lose > "operating state" in our suspend I guess? > > So using the shallow suspend as standby sounds interesting, for the time when > the deep suspend works too. If there is only one suspend state it > automatically becomes the "mem"-state it seems. It's not really "automatic", it's a product of this line: static const struct platform_suspend_ops rk3288_suspend_ops = { .enter = rk3288_suspend_enter, .valid = suspend_valid_only_mem, <--- here .prepare = rk3288_suspend_prepare, .finish = rk3288_suspend_finish, }; and the fact that we don't check the 'state' argument in .enter/.prepare/.finish. But still, I'm not sure it's productive to rename shallow until we support deep. Regards, Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/