[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150805133343.GL16878@atomide.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 06:33:44 -0700
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: allow specifying separate wakeup interrupt in
device tree
* Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> [150803 13:05]:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 03:21:21AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >
> > Hmm why do we need the check for if (device_can_wakeup(&client->dev)))?
>
> Because of the code in device_wakeup_attach_irq():
>
> ws = dev->power.wakeup;
> if (!ws) {
> dev_err(dev, "forgot to call call device_init_wakeup?\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
OK :)
> > Also wondering about the dev vs &client->dev usage here.. But I take
> > you have checked that we end up calling the runtime PM calls of the
> > client instead of the i2c bus controller :)
>
> dev *is* clent->dev in this context:
>
> struct i2c_client *client = i2c_verify_client(dev);
OK thanks for confirming that.
Regards,
Tony
--
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