Hi Ulf,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ulf Hansson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 11:24 AM
> To: Alex Lemberg
> Cc: Avi Shchislowski; linux-mmc
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] mmc: sleep notification
>
> On 8 June 2015 at 15:17, Alex Lemberg <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Ulf,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>
> >> One of my comments for v2, was that I think you should remove all
> >> code which was related to HPI to interrupt sleep notification from
> >> the runtime PM resume path. Instead I wanted you to add that
> >> functionality as separate patch based on top of this patch.
> >>
> >> You haven't done that in v3, why?
> >
> > The sleep_notify call was moved to suspend() per your recommendation.
> > As far as I understand, no new requests should be sent during
> > mmc_suspend() process, thus HPI support is not needed anymore.
> > Is this the correct assumption?
>
> Yes.
>
> I don't think you need mmc_card_set_sleep_notify() and the corresponding
> new MMC_STATE_SLEEP_NOTIFY , mmc_device_prg_state(), etc.
mmc_card_set_sleep_notify(), MMC_STATE_SLEEP_NOTIFY and the corresponding - We
are removing it from the current patch. Probably will add them as a separate
patch in future.
mmc_device_prg_state() - is required for waiting for Sleep_Notification
completion/timeout, although we would like to leave this function.
>
> Overall, I think this patch could be simplified yet another step.
>
> > The only case where HPI is used in this patch - is during sleep_notify
> timeout error.
>
> Why?
In case of timeout error, we would like to handle it by sending HPI - to let
device interrupt/stop the prg state.
>
> One final question, I noticed that you have removed the check for
> MMC_CAP2_FULL_PWR_CYCLE in the _mmc_suspend() function, why?
As far as we understand, this MMC_CAP2_FULL_PWR_CYCLE was used to distinguish
between PON (when the power can be cut)
and Sleep (when the power have to stay ON).
Now we have Sleep_Notification PON, which allows to cut the power also in case
of Sleep.
Hope the interpretation above is correct.
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{��g"��^n�r���z���h�����&�� �G���h�(�階�ݢj"���m������z�ޖ���f���h���~�m�
