Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-146543-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:04 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
Cc: cristian.marussi@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: power_control: support suspend
 command
Message-ID: <Zh5BXAuLKM1uUOyD@bogus>
References: <20240415101141.1591112-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240415101141.1591112-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:11:41PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>
> Support System suspend notification. Using a work struct to call
> pm_suspend. There is no way to pass suspend level to pm_suspend,
> so use MEM as of now.
>

While the change itself is simple and no-controversial, I am bit worried
about:

1. The choice of S2R(MEM) by default - not sure if different system
   prefer different things. The userspace can configure whatever default
   behaviour expected as S2R IIUC, so should be OK. I need to check though.

2. The userspace needs to keep the wakeup source enabled always which
   I need to check if it is feasible on all the platforms. If wakeups
   are not configured properly and suspend is triggered, the system can
   never resume back.

We may need to mention above points at-least as part of commit log. I
would wait for some feedback from SCMI users.

--
Regards,
Sudeep