From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:14:56 -0800 Subject: PM regression in next In-Reply-To: <20180112135526.GC29734@lunn.ch> References: <20180112000037.GA3875@atomide.com> <20180112013257.GB4059@atomide.com> <4913146.sVL6sFxzC8@aspire.rjw.lan> <4745593.FguGN2uIkX@aspire.rjw.lan> <20180112131623.GA29734@lunn.ch> <20180112135203.GA4821@atomide.com> <20180112135526.GC29734@lunn.ch> Message-ID: <20180112141456.GB4821@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Andrew Lunn [180112 13:55]: > > Thanks that fixes the suspend error. And I was able to confirm > > that the suspend power consumption is OK. > > > > That still leaves the mystery of the runtime idle power consumption > > being much higher with commit e130bc1d00a4. > > Did you re-measure the runtime power? Do you have an unused PHY? It > could be it is not getting shut down. 1G PHYs can be quite power > hungry. Yes this is a different issue, the increase in runtime PM consumption measurement I'm measuring is for a SoM board. It contains the SoC + memory + PMIC and few devices. The Ethernet controller is on a separate optional base board and not related to the runtime PM issue. Regards, Tony