Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210119124622.9490-1-mike.looijmans@topic.nl>
 <20210119124622.9490-2-mike.looijmans@topic.nl> <CACRpkdbFgskpPUoVK7bU1EyChEvD4e9WHhvcUJh4e1UUO2WFdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210123153511.1802a15a@archlinux>
In-Reply-To: <20210123153511.1802a15a@archlinux>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Sun, 24 Jan 2021 00:21:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZTJbAFK0j8U84pyW6za-SGJqGWnvertj8sXxc8Ou8VeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] iio: accel: Add support for the Bosch-Sensortec BMI088
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc:     Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@topic.nl>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dan Robertson <dan@dlrobertson.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?R2HDq3RhbiBBbmRyw6k=?= <rvlander@gaetanandre.eu>,
        Jonathan Bakker <xc-racer2@live.ca>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
> [Me]
> > Next, I think it is better to let suspend/resume, i.e. system PM
> > reuse runtime PM since you're implementing that. This is why
> > we invented PM runtime force resume and force suspend.
>
> Here the driver is turning more off for full suspend than in the
> runtime path.  If that results in significant extra delay then
> it's not appropriate to have that in the runtime suspend path.

I see the point.

The resume path calls bmi088_accel_enable() which incurs
a 5ms delay.

The runtime resume path incurs a 1 ms delay.

The runtime autosuspend kicks in after 2 ms.

> Maybe the simplification of not doing the deeper power saving
> mode is worth the extra power cost or extra delay, but
> I'm not yet convinced.

I would personally set the autosuspend to ~20ms and just use
one path and take a hit of 5 ms whenever we go down between
measures if it is a system that is for human interaction, but for
control systems this more complex set-up may be better for
response latencies.

The current approach may be better tuned to perfection and
we are all perfectionists :D

I'm just worrying a little about bugs and maintainability.

Yours,
Linus Walleij