[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc1731e0-0770-4bc9-abd7-239733a03d95@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 09:13:52 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@...omium.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>, Raul Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>, Rob Herring
<robh@...nel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/22] Documentation: devicetree: Clarify wording for
wakeup-source property
On 21/12/2023 00:54, Mark Hasemeyer wrote:
> The wording in the current documentation is a little strong. The
> intention was not to fix any particular interrupt as wakeup capable but
> leave those details to the device. It wasn't intended to enforce any
> rules as what can be or can't be a wakeup interrupt.
>
> Soften the wording to not mandate that the 'wakeup-source' property be
> used, and clarify what it means when an interrupt is marked (or not
> marked) for wakeup.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZYAjxxHcCOgDVMTQ@bogus/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_Jsq+MYwOG40X26cYmO9EkZ9xqWrXDi03MaRfxnV-+VGkXWQ@mail.gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@...omium.org>
Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. You can get them for
example with `git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory
your patch is touching.
You nicely skipped all my filters... No need to resend to fix this, but
fix it if sending a new version.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists