Re: [RFC 1/2] PM / suspend: Add platform_suspend_target_state()

[Pavel Machek]

On Sat 2017-07-15 20:33:58, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 15/07/2017 at 10:20:27 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > We already have
> > > 
> > > struct regulator_state {
> > >        int uV; /* suspend voltage */
> > >        unsigned int mode; /* suspend regulator operating mode */
> > >        int enabled; /* is regulator enabled in this suspend state */
> > >        int disabled; /* is the regulator disabled in this suspend state */
> > > };
> > > 
> > >  * struct regulation_constraints - regulator operating constraints.
> > >   * @state_disk: State for regulator when system is suspended in disk
> > >   * mode.
> > >   * @state_mem: State for regulator when system is suspended in mem
> > >   * mode.
> > >   * @state_standby: State for regulator when system is suspended in
> > >   * standby
> > >   *                 mode.
> > >    
> > > . So it seems that maybe we should tell the drivers if we are entering
> > > "state_mem" or "state_standby" (something I may have opposed, sorry),
> > > then the driver can get neccessary information from regulator
> > > framework.
> > 
> > OK, so what would be the mechanism to tell these drivers about the
> > system wide suspend state they are entering if it is not via
> > platform_suspend_target_state()?
> > 
> > Keep in mind that regulators might be one aspect of what could be
> > causing the platform to behave specifically in one suspend state vs.
> > another, but there could be pieces of HW within the SoC that can't be
> > described with power domains, voltage islands etc. that would still have
> > inherent suspend states properties (like memory retention, pin/pad
> > controls etc. etc). We still need some mechanism, possibly centralized
> > 
> 
> I concur, the regulator stuff is one aspect of one of our suspend state
> (cutting VDDcore). But we have another state where the main clock (going
> to the IPs) is going from a few hundred MHz to 32kHz. This is currently
> handled by calling at91_suspend_entering_slow_clock(). I think it is
> important to take that into account so we can remove this hack from the
> kernel.

Cure should not be worse then the disease... and it is in this case.

For clocks, take a look at clock framework, perhaps it already has "clock_will_be_suspended"
as regulator framework had. If not, implement it.

Same with memory retention, pin/pad controls.

									Pavel