From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Stuebner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: rockchip: correct regulator PM properties Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 22:51:22 +0200 Message-ID: <2079050.z559I6SEaj@phil> References: <1439923455-109818-1-git-send-email-briannorris@chromium.org> <10828643.SSUS2EOuvv@phil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Brian Norris , "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 List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, 27. August 2015, 12:30:51 schrieb Doug Anderson: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > > great, just take into account the deep vs. shallow suspend modes :-) > > One note: do you think it would make sense to re-implement shallow > suspend as "standby"? I had a proof of concept doing that in > . One nice > advantage is that you "magically" get a second set of regulator states > for standby vs "mem". Somewhere I've read something about keeping wifi associated to an ap during suspend which might be a candidate for such a distinction? > 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? >>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. Heiko