Hi Rafeal, Soft ping. Is this patch good to be merged ?
Thanks, Ravi On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Ravi Chandra Sadineni <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Ravi Chandra Sadineni >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Currently we show event_count instead of wakeup_count as part of per >>> device wakeup_count sysfs attribute. Change it to wakeup_count to make >>> it more meaningful. >> >> More information, please. >> >> In particular, why it is more meaningful. > Wakeup_count increments only when events_check_enabled is set. This > bool is set whenever we write current wakeup count to > /sys/power/wakeup_count from the user land. Also events_check_enabled > is cleared on every resume. My understanding is that, userland is > expected to write to this just before suspend. This way > pm_wakeup_event() when called from irqs will increment the > wakeup_count only if we are in system wide suspend resume cycle and > should give a fair approximation of how many times a device might have > caused a wake from S3/S0iX. event_count on the other hand will > increment every time pm_wakeup_event() is called irrespective of > whether we are in a suspend/resume cycle. For example when I try > doing something like this (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/1/890), we see > the wakeup_count sysfs attribute for the particular device > incrementing every time there is a irq. If it is important to expose > event_count via sysfs attribute, should we create another attribute ? > Also we do expose each of these counters via > debugfs(/sys/kernel/debug/wake_sources). > > Please correct me if I am wrong or missing something. Also if there is > a better way to do this, please let me know. >> >> Thanks, >> Rafael
