[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] intel: thermal: PCH: Drop ACPI_FADT_LOW_POWER_S0 check
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 8:14 AM Zhang Rui <> wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-07-14 at 21:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <>
> >
> > If ACPI_FADT_LOW_POWER_S0 is not set, this doesn't mean that low-
> > power
> > S0 idle is not usable. It merely means that using S3 on the given
> > system is more beneficial from the energy saving perspective than
> > using
> > low-power S0 idle, as long as S3 is supported.
> Agreed.
> >
> > Suspend-to-idle is still a valid suspend mode if
> > is not set and the pm_suspend_via_firmware() check in
> > pch_wpt_suspend()
> > is sufficient to distinguish suspend-to-idle from S3, so drop the
> > confusing ACPI_FADT_LOW_POWER_S0 check.
> the cooling delay in the suspend callback is to make sure PCH
> temperature won't block S0ix during s2idle. So if S0ix is not
> supported, it is meaningless to invoke the cooling delay during s2idle.

But there is no way to determine whether or not S0ix is supported. In
particular, ACPI_FADT_LOW_POWER_S0 is not one.

> so the problem is that we don't have an indicator for S0ix capability.
> And this also applies to drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c, where we use ACPI SCI
> for runtime RTC wakeup instead of HPET interrupt on "S0ix capable"
> platforms because the HPET timer may block S0ix.

"S0ix capable" doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the
current transition under way is into S0 or into suspend-to-idle. In
the latter case there is no reason to avoid doing whatever is done in
the expectation that S0ix may be entered going forward.

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-17 21:40    [W:0.035 / U:1.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site