Re: [PATCH] power: Print wakeup_count instead of event_count in the sysfs attribute.

[Ravi Chandra Sadineni]

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
<ravisadineni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Ravi Chandra Sadineni
>> <ravisadineni@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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