RFC Qualcomm RPM sleep states

Quoted 8 lines · Stephen Boyd

Quoted 2 lines · Mark Brown

I think I now have a reasonable picture of what's going on but wanted to confirm that what I'm saying above makes sense.

That's good. Is there any conclusion here? I'm still thinking that having multiple regulators for the same physical supply is the right thing to do.

As I said, the only other idea I've come up with will not cut it for the regulators that need more than enable/disable support when going to sleep.

Even if we came up with some model of exposing something similar to the suspend state, we would still need to expose it in a way that we can specify which (active/sleep/both) state in the consumer. Hence in practice we end up with exposing multiple regulators in one way or another.

I can't help thinking that this would be a problem with the static suspend settings as well; i.e. what is the static suspend state for a regulator that powers a WiFi chip? For me the answer would often be "it's enabled iff the WiFi consumer asks for it" - but maybe it's not supposed to be used for "dynamic" regulators.