From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753426AbbCEAJQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 19:09:16 -0500
Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:7639 "EHLO mga01.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752960AbbCEAJN (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 19:09:13 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,344,1422950400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="660596405"
Message-ID: <54F79EA6.2030605@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:09:10 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@linux.intel.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] intel_idle: Add ->enter_freeze callbacks
References: <8292243.ibkmfVtXac@vostro.rjw.lan> <25445086.IBiaGBbm1j@vostro.rjw.lan> <54F79A42.9070801@linux.intel.com> <2502414.MyBzvuWGMR@vostro.rjw.lan>
In-Reply-To: <2502414.MyBzvuWGMR@vostro.rjw.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2015/3/5 8:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, March 05, 2015 07:50:26 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2015/2/13 0:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 12, 2015 02:26:43 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why bother with enter_freeze() for any but the deepest state (C6 in this
>>>> case)?
>>>
>>> User space may disable the deepest one (and any of them in general) via sysfs
>>> and there's no good reason to ignore its choice in this particular case while
>>> we're honoring it otherwise.
>>>
>>> So the logic is basically "find the deepest one which isn't disabled" and
>>> setting the pointers costs us nothing really.
>>>
>>
>> If the user has chance to disable C6 via /sys, that means c6 works?
>> Shouldn't we ignore user space setting during freeze? Otherwise, we will
>> lost S0ix?
> 
> We can't ignore it, because we don't know the reason why the state was
> disabled.
> 

> It may just not work reliably enough on the given platform.
>
okay, make sense to me. Thanks, -Aubrey