From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Frodo Lai <frodo.lai@gmail.com>, Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@bitmath.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"Quadros, Roger" <rogerq@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:33:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720063323.GC13092@dtor-ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720060506.GV17550@atomide.com>
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:05:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> [150719 21:51]:
> > On 7/18/2015 3:21 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if driver core should be responsible for clearing wake irq and
> > > also for clearing wakeup flag.
> > >
> >
> > AFAICU, wakeup flag is deleted when struct device is deleted, hence,
> > device_init_wakeup() call may not be required in .remove(). But,
> > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq() can be moved to driver core.
>
> Currently the lifecycle of struct wakeup_source is not necessarily
> the same as the lifecycle struct device. I believe net and usb drivers
> at least allocate it dynamically.
I am not sure if I follow. I was wondering if we should clear the wakeup
IRQ setting on the driver unbinding. It does not mean that we'd be
deleting wakeup_source, just that we'll clear wakeup irq setting from
it.
--
Dmitry
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com (Dmitry Torokhov)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:33:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720063323.GC13092@dtor-ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720060506.GV17550@atomide.com>
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:05:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> [150719 21:51]:
> > On 7/18/2015 3:21 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if driver core should be responsible for clearing wake irq and
> > > also for clearing wakeup flag.
> > >
> >
> > AFAICU, wakeup flag is deleted when struct device is deleted, hence,
> > device_init_wakeup() call may not be required in .remove(). But,
> > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq() can be moved to driver core.
>
> Currently the lifecycle of struct wakeup_source is not necessarily
> the same as the lifecycle struct device. I believe net and usb drivers
> at least allocate it dynamically.
I am not sure if I follow. I was wondering if we should clear the wakeup
IRQ setting on the driver unbinding. It does not mean that we'd be
deleting wakeup_source, just that we'll clear wakeup irq setting from
it.
--
Dmitry
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>,
Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"Quadros, Roger" <rogerq@ti.com>,
Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@bitmath.org>,
Frodo Lai <frodo.lai@gmail.com>, Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:33:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720063323.GC13092@dtor-ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720060506.GV17550@atomide.com>
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:05:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> [150719 21:51]:
> > On 7/18/2015 3:21 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if driver core should be responsible for clearing wake irq and
> > > also for clearing wakeup flag.
> > >
> >
> > AFAICU, wakeup flag is deleted when struct device is deleted, hence,
> > device_init_wakeup() call may not be required in .remove(). But,
> > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq() can be moved to driver core.
>
> Currently the lifecycle of struct wakeup_source is not necessarily
> the same as the lifecycle struct device. I believe net and usb drivers
> at least allocate it dynamically.
I am not sure if I follow. I was wondering if we should clear the wakeup
IRQ setting on the driver unbinding. It does not mean that we'd be
deleting wakeup_source, just that we'll clear wakeup irq setting from
it.
--
Dmitry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 6:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-17 6:40 [PATCH 0/2] pixcir_i2c_ts: Add optional wakeup irq support Vignesh R
2015-07-17 6:40 ` Vignesh R
2015-07-17 6:40 ` Vignesh R
2015-07-17 6:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt Vignesh R
2015-07-17 6:40 ` Vignesh R
2015-07-17 6:40 ` Vignesh R
[not found] ` <1437115241-17859-2-git-send-email-vigneshr-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2015-07-17 21:51 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2015-07-17 21:51 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2015-07-17 21:51 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2015-07-20 4:48 ` Vignesh R
2015-07-20 4:48 ` Vignesh R
2015-07-20 6:05 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-07-20 6:05 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-07-20 6:33 ` Dmitry Torokhov [this message]
2015-07-20 6:33 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2015-07-20 6:33 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-07-17 6:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: am437x-gp-evm: Add wakeup interrupt source for pixcir_i2c_tsc Vignesh R
2015-07-17 6:40 ` Vignesh R
2015-07-17 6:40 ` Vignesh R
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150720063323.GC13092@dtor-ws \
--to=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=bcousson@baylibre.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=frodo.lai@gmail.com \
--cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
--cc=jg1.han@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=rogerq@ti.com \
--cc=rydberg@bitmath.org \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.