On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.tho...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 2017-11-03 at 12:47:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>>
>> The genpd governor currently uses negative PM QoS values to indicate
>> the "no suspend" condition and 0 as "no restriction", but it doesn't
>> use them consistently. Moreover, it tries to refresh QoS values for
>> already suspended devices in a quite questionable way.
>>
>> For the above reasons, rework it to be a bit more consistent.
>>
>> First off, note that dev_pm_qos_read_value() in
>> dev_update_qos_constraint() and __default_power_down_ok() is
>> evaluated for devices in suspend. Moreover, that only happens if the
>> effective_constraint_ns value for them is negative (meaning "no
>> suspend"). It is not evaluated in any other cases, so effectively
>> the QoS values are only updated for devices in suspend that should
>> not have been suspended in the first place. In all of the other
>> cases, the QoS values taken into account are the effective ones from
>> the time before the device has been suspended, so generally devices
>> need to be resumed and suspended again for new QoS values to take
>> effect anyway. Thus evaluating dev_update_qos_constraint() in
>> those two places doesn't make sense at all, so drop it.
>>
>> Second, initialize effective_constraint_ns to 0 ("no constraint")
>> rather than to (-1) ("no suspend"), which makes more sense in
>> general and in case effective_constraint_ns is never updated
>> (the device is in suspend all the time or it is never suspended)
>> it doesn't affect the device's parent and so on.
>>
>> Finally, rework default_suspend_ok() to explicitly handle the
>> "no restriction" special case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>> ---
[cut]
> Looks good to me.
>
> Acked-by: Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.tho...@intel.com>
Thanks!
Do you actually mean Reviewed-by?
