From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>
To: Andrew Murray <amurray@mpc-data.co.uk>
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Issue with pm_debug?
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:31:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87my0025gd.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0C997DD87CC88A4F86C897F52650B52B025627F2@MOLSON.mpc-data.co.uk> (Andrew Murray's message of "Tue\, 26 Jan 2010 15\:45\:13 -0000")
"Andrew Murray" <amurray@mpc-data.co.uk> writes:
> Hello,
>
> I've been studying the power management support on the OMAP 35x EVM (Rev
> G) and have noticed something which seems inconsistent with the
> documentation.
>
> According to the elinux OMAP Power Management wiki page
> (http://elinux.org/OMAP_Power_Management) - setting "sleep_while_idle"
> to '1' and setting "enable_off_mode" and "voltage_off_while_idle" to '0'
> in the debugfs should result in a kernel which will never hit 'off'
> sleep states.
>
> However in this set up (with both ladder and menu governor) I've found
> that in this state the C5 and C6 states are entered (according to
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state[5/6]/time). However according
> to the sources these states include the off state.
>
> Also the /debug/pm_debug/time indicates the off state wasn't reached.
> Therefore is it just the case that the CPUIdle framework requested C5/6
> and the omap driver accepted by actually used another state?
Yes, you're correct.
(also, as an aside, /debug/pm_debug/count might be useful to you as well)
> Is this incorrect behaviour?
Yes, this is a bug.
This is a known problem in that CPUidle statistics are wrong because
we don't correctly report back to CPUidle the actual state that was
entered when enable_off_mode==0. Sanjeev has proposed a patch for
this and I have requested some changes from him:
http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/62533/
after the changes I have proposed, I plan to merge this into the PM
branch. We have a similar issue with the recently posted OSWR
support, and Sanjeev's patch will address both dynamic enable of
off-mode and of OSWR.
> Or is my understanding of power management implementation incorrect?
> Any clarifications would be of great value.
>
> I've used the 'pm' branch in the khilman linux-omap-pm repository. (Is
> this the most appropriate mailing list?)
Yes, you're in the right place :)
Thanks for reporting the problem and the thorough analysis.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-26 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-26 15:45 Issue with pm_debug? Andrew Murray
2010-01-26 16:31 ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2010-01-26 16:39 ` Andrew Murray
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87my0025gd.fsf@deeprootsystems.com \
--to=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=amurray@mpc-data.co.uk \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox