[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191115152221.GA4210@sirena.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 15:22:21 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...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 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.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists