Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] platform/x86/intel/pmc: core: Report duration of time in HW sleep state

[Box, David E]

On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 16:18 -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> intel_pmc_core displays a warning when the module parameter
> `warn_on_s0ix_failures` is set and a suspend didn't get to a HW sleep
> state.
> 
> Report this to the standard kernel reporting infrastructure so that
> userspace software can query after the suspend cycle is done.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> v5->v6:
>  * Handle overflow case
>  * Use renamed symbol
> v4->v5:
>  * Reword commit message
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c
> b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c
> index 925c5d676a43..0621756792c8 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/core.c
> @@ -1214,6 +1214,11 @@ static inline bool pmc_core_is_s0ix_failed(struct
> pmc_dev *pmcdev)
>         if (pmc_core_dev_state_get(pmcdev, &s0ix_counter))
>                 return false;
>  
> +       if (s0ix_counter >= pmcdev->s0ix_counter)
> +               pm_report_hw_sleep_time(s0ix_counter - pmcdev->s0ix_counter);

This would drop valid measurements when it's just the case that the counter has
overflowed but hasn't yet wrapped around to the previous value.

> +       else
> +               pm_report_hw_sleep_time(U64_MAX);


How about no if/else, just:

	return (u32)(s0ix_counter - pmcdev->s0ix_counter);

David

> +
>         if (s0ix_counter == pmcdev->s0ix_counter)
>                 return true;
>