[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50A31557.30704@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:51:51 -0500
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: "sameo@...ux.intel.com" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
"lrg@...com" <lrg@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] mfd: add TI TPS80031 mfd core driver
On 11/13/2012 10:04 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:01:26PM -0500, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>>> This does not seem sensible. Why would this be optional if it is
>>> useful? In any case, what you're doing in the driver here is clearly
>>> not the way forward.
>> I was thinking of adding wake_enable in struct regmap_irq_chip and
>> decide the wake support based on the value if wake_enable true or
>> wake_base is non-zero. then wake support should be enable.
>> The wake register write will happen only when wake_base is non-zero.
> But to repeat my question why would this be optional?
>
OK, I wanted to make this configurable to preserve the current
functional behavior although I always want to be wakeup from PMIC
devices i.e. gpio or rtc or onkey etc.
If I understand your statement then the wake support should be there and
should enable the wake even if there is no wake_base. The irq_set_wake()
should be called for parent irq if client have called the irq_set_wake()
with interrupts supported by this regmap-irq.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists