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
In-Reply-To: <8009f5a1458468dbf0b7b20dd166911c@codeaurora.org>
References: <1628180254-758-1-git-send-email-deesin@codeaurora.org>
 <CAE-0n5203g4CkF5WP1fQYU57fntXbdyVBsMsTKU_xPkgvbt+7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <bf2b00c5-0826-00d2-ca95-b4ae6a030211@codeaurora.org> <CAE-0n53ojhs+RMpsYtVjsrYbb_PRdkJOvxFhiTtJPMUDuoP_eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8009f5a1458468dbf0b7b20dd166911c@codeaurora.org>
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
User-Agent: alot/0.9.1
Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:18:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE-0n53TCo1UTVi3e18N5hF3+Y_bLiqgH1o5PEua7F9-bog_gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/1] soc: qcom: smp2p: Add wakeup capability to SMP2P IRQ
To:     Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Deepak Kumar Singh <deesin@codeaurora.org>,
        bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, clew@codeaurora.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-08-10 10:24:32)
> On 2021-08-09 23:28, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Deepak Kumar Singh (2021-08-09 04:05:08)
> >>
> >> On 8/6/2021 1:10 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> > Quoting Deepak Kumar Singh (2021-08-05 09:17:33)
> >> >> Some use cases require SMP2P interrupts to wake up the host
> >> >> from suspend.
> >> > Please elaborate on this point so we understand what sort of scenarios
> >> > want to wakeup from suspend.
> >>
> >> Once such scenario is where WiFi/modem crashes and notifies crash to
> >> local host through smp2p
> >>
> >> if local host is in suspend it should wake up to handle the crash and
> >> reboot the WiFi/modem.
> >
> > Does anything go wrong if the firmware crashes during suspend and the
> > local host doesn't handle it until it wakes for some other reason? I'd
> > like to understand if the crash handling can be delayed/combined with
> > another wakeup.
>
> If the modem firmware crashes
> during suspend, the system comes
> out of xo-shutdown and AFAIK stays
> there until we handle the interrupt.
>

So you're saying we waste power if we don't wakeup the AP and leave the
SoC in a shallow low power state? That would be good to have indicated
in the code via a comment and in the commit text so we know that we want
to handle the wakeup by default.