[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+9eejCg41poj--GDtUqOgSUoNMpB=OEAuKhNu1Ggb7Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:43:23 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] spi: dt-bindings: spi-controller: add wakeup-source
and interrupts
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 9:22 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 07:52:22AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>
> > if:
> > properties:
> > interrupt-names:
> > contains:
> > const: wakeup
> > required:
> > - interrupt-names
> > then:
> > required:
> > - wakeup-source
>
> That seems to say that if we have a device that has an interrupt called
> "wakeup" then it must be a wakeup source. Is that desirable? Being
> able to wake the system is partly a property of the system as a whole
> (the wakeup signal needs to be wired somewhere where it can wake things)
> and a device might have a signal that could be used to wake the system,
> may even be called "wakeup" by the device but for some reason isn't
> wired suitably in a given system.
Perhaps it is too strict. It would be useful as a "Did you forget
wakeup-source?" message, but we don't have a way to distinguish that.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists