From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tero Kristo Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 07/12] ARM: OMAP4: PM: put all domains to OSWR during suspend Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:31:47 +0300 Message-ID: <1342711907.4672.153.camel@sokoban> References: <1342704392-23657-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1342704392-23657-8-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:46721 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750942Ab2GSPbx (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:31:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, nm@ti.com, khilman@ti.com, rnayak@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 08:44 -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Tero Kristo wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo > > This one needs at least some short description for the changelog. Maybe > just a brief explanation that OSWR saves more energy that CSWR, but has > higher resume latency, and since resume from system suspend is considered > to be a high-latency operation, OSWR is appropriate here. Yea, I can add one. How about this: Subject: [PATCHv7 07/12] ARM: OMAP4: PM: put all domains to OSWR during suspend Currently OMAP4 suspend puts all power domains to CSWR. OSWR is a deeper state that saves more power, but has higher latencies also. As suspend is considered a high-latency operation, OSWR is appropriate here. Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo --- I'll update this to next rev if one is requested. (Kind of hoping this set would be reaching maturity already.) -Tero