ACK: [PATCH 00/12][SRU][B][C][D][OEM-B] To reduce the Realtek USB cardreader power consumption

[Colin Ian King]

On 11/01/2019 08:30, AceLan Kao wrote:
> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1811337
> 
> [Impact]
> Realtek USB cardreader consumes more than 1 Watt during long idle if
> it's not suspended. And it's runtime PM functions are available after
> v4.20.
> 
> [Fix]
> To avoid conflicts, have to backport some patches for mmc core.
> 
> [Test]
> Note: Inside () are the previous value (non-patch)
> Sort idle: 7.76W (7.88)
> Long idle: 4.658W (5.79)
> S3: 0.5W (0.5)
> S5: 0.20W (0.208)
> 
> [Regression Potential]
> Low, most commits are for rtsx_usb_{sdmmc,ms} and are all small changes.
> 
> Kai-Heng Feng (5):
>   memstick: rtsx_usb_ms: Add missing pm_runtime_disable() in probe
>     function
>   misc: rtsx_usb: Use USB remote wakeup signaling for card insertion
>     detection
>   memstick: Prevent memstick host from getting runtime suspended during
>     card detection
>   memstick: rtsx_usb_ms: Use ms_dev() helper
>   memstick: rtsx_usb_ms: Support runtime power management
> 
> Kishon Vijay Abraham I (1):
>   mmc: sdhci: Disable 1.8v modes (HS200/HS400/UHS) if controller can't
>     support 1.8v
> 
> Ulf Hansson (6):
>   mmc: core: Introduce MMC_CAP_SYNC_RUNTIME_PM
>   mmc: rtsx_usb_sdmmc: Don't runtime resume the device while changing
>     led
>   mmc: rtsx_usb: Use MMC_CAP2_NO_SDIO
>   mmc: rtsx_usb: Enable MMC_CAP_ERASE to allow erase/discard/trim
>     requests
>   mmc: rtsx_usb_sdmmc: Re-work runtime PM support
>   mmc: rtsx_usb_sdmmc: Re-work card detection/removal support
> 
>  drivers/memstick/core/memstick.c    |   3 +
>  drivers/memstick/host/rtsx_usb_ms.c | 170 +++++++++++++++++-----------
>  drivers/misc/cardreader/rtsx_usb.c  |   8 ++
>  drivers/mmc/core/core.c             |   5 +-
>  drivers/mmc/host/rtsx_usb_sdmmc.c   |  59 ++++++----
>  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c            |  10 ++
>  include/linux/mmc/host.h            |   6 +-
>  7 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)
> 

The saving of power is SRU-worthy IMHO and can justify the potential SRU
risk with the benefit of power saving.  Changes look sane.

Acked-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>