On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 00:21:13 +0100
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[Me]I see the point.
Next, I think it is better to let suspend/resume, i.e. system PMHere the driver is turning more off for full suspend than in the
reuse runtime PM since you're implementing that. This is why
we invented PM runtime force resume and force suspend.
runtime path. If that results in significant extra delay then
it's not appropriate to have that in the runtime suspend path.
The resume path calls bmi088_accel_enable() which incurs
a 5ms delay.
The runtime resume path incurs a 1 ms delay.
The runtime autosuspend kicks in after 2 ms.
Fully understood. Though for things like this I like to leave
Maybe the simplification of not doing the deeper power savingI would personally set the autosuspend to ~20ms and just use
mode is worth the extra power cost or extra delay, but
I'm not yet convinced.
one path and take a hit of 5 ms whenever we go down between
measures if it is a system that is for human interaction, but for
control systems this more complex set-up may be better for
response latencies.
The current approach may be better tuned to perfection and
we are all perfectionists :D
I'm just worrying a little about bugs and maintainability.
it at the discretion of the driver author as fairly safe they
are a user of the device.
May well make sense to go with the longer times as you
suggest though! Over to you Mike :)