[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171102231551.16220-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:15:49 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org (open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED
DEVICE TREE BINDINGS), linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list),
ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com, tony@...mide.com,
ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, swarren@...dia.com,
andy.shevchenko@...il.com, alcooperx@...il.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] pinctrl: Allow indicating loss of state across suspend/resume
Hello Linus,
It's me again, so I have been thinking about the problem originally
reported in: [PATCH fixes v3] pinctrl: Really force states during suspend/resume
and other similar patches a while ago, and this new version allows a platform
using pinctrl-single to specify whether its pins are going to lose their state
during a system deep sleep.
Note that this is still checked at the pinctrl_select_state() because consumers
of the pinctrl API might be calling this from their suspend/resume functions
and should not have to know whether the provider does lose its pin states.
This is against your pinctrl/for-next branch.
Thanks!
Changes in v2:
- make the property generic and not specific to pinctrl-single
Florian Fainelli (2):
pinctrl: Allow a device to indicate when to force a state
pinctrl: Allow indicating loss of pin states during low-power
.../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt | 4 ++++
drivers/pinctrl/core.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
drivers/pinctrl/core.h | 4 ++++
3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.9.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists