On Thu, July 11, 2013, Sujit Reddy Thumma wrote:
> On 7/10/2013 7:01 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> > I'm not sure that BKOPS with runtime-pm associates.
> > Do you think it's helpful for power management?
> > How about hibernation scheme for runtime-pm?
> > I'm testing and I can introduce soon.
>
> Well, I am thinking on following approach when we introduce
> power management.
>
> ufshcd_runtime_suspend() {
> if (bkops_status >= NON_CRITICAL) { /* 0x1 */
> ufshcd_enable_auto_bkops();
> hibernate(); /* only the link and the device
> should be able to cary out bkops */
> } else {
> hibernate(); /* Link and the device for more savings */
> }
> }
>
> Let me know if this is okay.
I still consider whether BKOPS is proper behavior with runtime-pm or not.
How about this scenario? It seems more simple.
If we concern a response latency of transfer requests, BKOPS can be disabled by
default.
And then BKOPS can be enabled whenever device requests in some exception.
If you have any idea, let me know.
Thanks,
Seungwon Jeon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
