Re: [PATCH 3/3] omap: board-sdp4430: declare support for MMC_PM_KEEP_POWER

[Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il>]

Hi Luciano,

On 11/28/11 11:08, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 10:26 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: 
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Coelho, Luciano <coelho@ti.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com> wrote:
>>>> Declare support for keeping the power of the wlan chip
>>>> while suspended. this is needed for Wakeup-On-Wireless.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-4430sdp.c |    1 +
>>>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> What about all the other board files that also have this structure?
>>> For example board-omap4panda.c? I think they should all be changed and
>>> the change should also be communicated more broadly for those board
>>> files which (unfortunately) are not upstream (or which are upstream
>>> but without the wl12xx-specific definitions on it, such as Beagle).
>>>
>> i preferred adding this capability only for boards i can test.
>> unfortunately, i don't a panda/beagle setup.
>> anyway, i don't think we have to add it all at once.
>> let's just do it one board at a time... i'll add support for zoom as
>> well. any volunteers for panda/beagle? ;)
> 
> Hmmm, okay, there is logic in that for the pragmatic, but this seems to
> be so clearly what is needed to solve the same problem with other boards
> that it could deserve changing all the board files.  In practice, your
> changes may affect all the other boards too, regardless of whether you
> set the new flag or not.  In any case, not my call here.
> 
> I may do it for panda later on, if I get the time to test it.  For
> beagle, it doesn't really apply, because the wl12xx support is
> out-of-tree, unfortunately. :(

If I understood correctly, you want to change all the
board files supporting the wl12xx wifi chip to have this
capability set, right?
Isn't this immediately affects the power consumption in
sleep state?
Shouldn't this be runtime controllable?
I bet there are many applications that do not care about WoW,
but do care about the power consumption.
How does this change affect them?


-- 
Regards,
Igor.