[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZtFRB_iy1bDPZ0wkK0jf7pkTGtbZG4gQUJVR+eiO+dhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:01:18 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
ext Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Al Cooper <alcooperx@...il.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pinctrl: Allow indicating loss of pin states
during low-power
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
> Some platforms (e.g: Broadcom STB: BMIPS_GENERIC/ARCH_BRCMSTB) will lose
> their register contents when entering their lower power state. In such a
> case, the pinctrl-single driver that is used will not be able to restore
> the power states without telling the core about it and having
> pinctrl_select_state() check for that.
>
> This patch adds a new optional boolean property that Device Tree can
> define in order to obtain exactly that and having the core pinctrl code
> take that into account.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Florian, I'm really sorry for losing track of this patch set, it's
important stuff and I see why systems are dependent on something
like this.
Tony: can you look at this from a pinctrl-single point of view?
This is the intended consumer: pinctrl-single users that lose the
hardware state over suspend/resume.
How do you see this working with other pinctrl-single users?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists