On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Paul Walmsley [off-list ref] wrote:

+ Venkat

Hi Balaji

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, T Krishnamoorthy, Balaji wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Kevin Hilman [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

"T Krishnamoorthy, Balaji" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I have seen some instabilities if delay is very less, on some
production boards. The previous implementation used 100ms delay
before disabling the clocks.

And your new one is using 50ms.  How did this value come about?

I don't have any specific affinity to this number, but when requests are
bursty, they arrive within a few 10s of ms within each other. Didn't
want to have the context/save restore penalty associated with every
request.

Kevin and I just chatted a little bit about this.  It seems best to
separate the work done on the autosuspend timeout from the runtime PM
conversion.

So how about this: please send a new version of these patches with the
previous value, 100ms, for the autosuspend timeout.  That should hopefully
minimize the behavior change here for existing users.  And hopefully we'll
be able to get the series in for this merge window.

Then later, we need to come back to this autosuspend timeout issue.

Ok.