* Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
@ 2015-07-17 21:51 ` Dmitry Torokhov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Torokhov @ 2015-07-17 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vignesh R
Cc: Tony Lindgren, Benoit Cousson, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll,
Mark Rutland, Ian Campbell, Kumar Gala, Russell King,
Roger Quadros, Henrik Rydberg, Frodo Lai, Jingoo Han, linux-omap,
devicetree, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, linux-input
Hi Vignesh,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:10:40PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
> On am437x-gp-evm, pixcir touchscreen can wake the system from low power
> state by generating wake-up interrupt via pinctrl and IO daisy chain.
> Add support for optional wakeup interrupt source by regsitering to
> automated wake IRQ framework introduced by commit 4990d4fe327b ("PM /
> Wakeirq: Add automated device wake IRQ handling").
> This is similar in approach to commit 2a0b965cfb6e ("serial: omap: Add
> support for optional wake-up")
>
> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>
> ---
> drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
> index 8f3e243a62bf..f7c602027fbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
> #include <linux/of.h>
> #include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> #include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
>
> #define PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS 5 /* Max fingers supported by driver */
>
> @@ -38,6 +40,7 @@ struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data {
> const struct pixcir_ts_platform_data *pdata;
> bool running;
> int max_fingers; /* Max fingers supported in this instance */
> + int wakeirq;
> };
>
> struct pixcir_touch {
> @@ -564,11 +567,22 @@ static int pixcir_i2c_ts_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> i2c_set_clientdata(client, tsdata);
> device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 1);
>
> + /* Register wakeirq, if available */
> + tsdata->wakeirq = of_irq_get(dev->of_node, 1);
Can we put this in platform data and parse in pixcir_parse_dt() please?
Also, why not of_irq_get_byname()?
> + if (tsdata->wakeirq) {
> + error = dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev,
> + tsdata->wakeirq);
> + if (error)
> + dev_dbg(dev, "unable to get wakeirq %d\n",
> + error);
> + }
Shouldn't his actually be:
error = tsdata->wakeirq ?
dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev, tsdata->wakeirq) :
dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, client->irq);
if (error) {
...
}
and then we can get rid of enable_irq_wake()/disable_irq_wake() in
pixcir_i2c_ts_suspend() and pixcir_i2c_ts_resume().
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> static int pixcir_i2c_ts_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> {
> + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&client->dev);
> device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 0);
I wonder if driver core should be responsible for clearing wake irq and
also for clearing wakeup flag.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
@ 2015-07-17 21:51 ` Dmitry Torokhov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Torokhov @ 2015-07-17 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Vignesh,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:10:40PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
> On am437x-gp-evm, pixcir touchscreen can wake the system from low power
> state by generating wake-up interrupt via pinctrl and IO daisy chain.
> Add support for optional wakeup interrupt source by regsitering to
> automated wake IRQ framework introduced by commit 4990d4fe327b ("PM /
> Wakeirq: Add automated device wake IRQ handling").
> This is similar in approach to commit 2a0b965cfb6e ("serial: omap: Add
> support for optional wake-up")
>
> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>
> ---
> drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
> index 8f3e243a62bf..f7c602027fbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
> #include <linux/of.h>
> #include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> #include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
>
> #define PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS 5 /* Max fingers supported by driver */
>
> @@ -38,6 +40,7 @@ struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data {
> const struct pixcir_ts_platform_data *pdata;
> bool running;
> int max_fingers; /* Max fingers supported in this instance */
> + int wakeirq;
> };
>
> struct pixcir_touch {
> @@ -564,11 +567,22 @@ static int pixcir_i2c_ts_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> i2c_set_clientdata(client, tsdata);
> device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 1);
>
> + /* Register wakeirq, if available */
> + tsdata->wakeirq = of_irq_get(dev->of_node, 1);
Can we put this in platform data and parse in pixcir_parse_dt() please?
Also, why not of_irq_get_byname()?
> + if (tsdata->wakeirq) {
> + error = dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev,
> + tsdata->wakeirq);
> + if (error)
> + dev_dbg(dev, "unable to get wakeirq %d\n",
> + error);
> + }
Shouldn't his actually be:
error = tsdata->wakeirq ?
dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev, tsdata->wakeirq) :
dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, client->irq);
if (error) {
...
}
and then we can get rid of enable_irq_wake()/disable_irq_wake() in
pixcir_i2c_ts_suspend() and pixcir_i2c_ts_resume().
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> static int pixcir_i2c_ts_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> {
> + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&client->dev);
> device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 0);
I wonder if driver core should be responsible for clearing wake irq and
also for clearing wakeup flag.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
2015-07-17 21:51 ` Dmitry Torokhov
@ 2015-07-20 4:48 ` Vignesh R
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Vignesh R @ 2015-07-20 4:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Torokhov
Cc: Tony Lindgren, Benoit Cousson, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll,
Mark Rutland, Ian Campbell, Kumar Gala, Russell King,
Quadros, Roger, Henrik Rydberg, Frodo Lai, Jingoo Han,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org
Hi Dmitry,
On 7/18/2015 3:21 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:10:40PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
>> On am437x-gp-evm, pixcir touchscreen can wake the system from low power
>> state by generating wake-up interrupt via pinctrl and IO daisy chain.
>> Add support for optional wakeup interrupt source by regsitering to
>> automated wake IRQ framework introduced by commit 4990d4fe327b ("PM /
>> Wakeirq: Add automated device wake IRQ handling").
>> This is similar in approach to commit 2a0b965cfb6e ("serial: omap: Add
>> support for optional wake-up")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
>> index 8f3e243a62bf..f7c602027fbd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
>> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
>> #include <linux/of.h>
>> #include <linux/of_gpio.h>
>> #include <linux/of_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
>>
>> #define PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS 5 /* Max fingers supported by driver */
>>
>> @@ -38,6 +40,7 @@ struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data {
>> const struct pixcir_ts_platform_data *pdata;
>> bool running;
>> int max_fingers; /* Max fingers supported in this instance */
>> + int wakeirq;
>> };
>>
>> struct pixcir_touch {
>> @@ -564,11 +567,22 @@ static int pixcir_i2c_ts_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> i2c_set_clientdata(client, tsdata);
>> device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 1);
>>
>> + /* Register wakeirq, if available */
>> + tsdata->wakeirq = of_irq_get(dev->of_node, 1);
>
> Can we put this in platform data and parse in pixcir_parse_dt() please?
> Also, why not of_irq_get_byname()?
>
Ok.
>> + if (tsdata->wakeirq) {
>> + error = dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev,
>> + tsdata->wakeirq);
>> + if (error)
>> + dev_dbg(dev, "unable to get wakeirq %d\n",
>> + error);
>> + }
>
> Shouldn't his actually be:
>
> error = tsdata->wakeirq ?
> dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev, tsdata->wakeirq) :
> dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, client->irq);
> if (error) {
> ...
> }
>
> and then we can get rid of enable_irq_wake()/disable_irq_wake() in
> pixcir_i2c_ts_suspend() and pixcir_i2c_ts_resume().
>
Yes, I will do this in v2.
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static int pixcir_i2c_ts_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>> {
>> + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&client->dev);
>> device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 0);
>
> 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.
Regards
Vignesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
@ 2015-07-20 4:48 ` Vignesh R
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Vignesh R @ 2015-07-20 4:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Dmitry,
On 7/18/2015 3:21 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:10:40PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
>> On am437x-gp-evm, pixcir touchscreen can wake the system from low power
>> state by generating wake-up interrupt via pinctrl and IO daisy chain.
>> Add support for optional wakeup interrupt source by regsitering to
>> automated wake IRQ framework introduced by commit 4990d4fe327b ("PM /
>> Wakeirq: Add automated device wake IRQ handling").
>> This is similar in approach to commit 2a0b965cfb6e ("serial: omap: Add
>> support for optional wake-up")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
>> index 8f3e243a62bf..f7c602027fbd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
>> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
>> #include <linux/of.h>
>> #include <linux/of_gpio.h>
>> #include <linux/of_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
>>
>> #define PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS 5 /* Max fingers supported by driver */
>>
>> @@ -38,6 +40,7 @@ struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data {
>> const struct pixcir_ts_platform_data *pdata;
>> bool running;
>> int max_fingers; /* Max fingers supported in this instance */
>> + int wakeirq;
>> };
>>
>> struct pixcir_touch {
>> @@ -564,11 +567,22 @@ static int pixcir_i2c_ts_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> i2c_set_clientdata(client, tsdata);
>> device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 1);
>>
>> + /* Register wakeirq, if available */
>> + tsdata->wakeirq = of_irq_get(dev->of_node, 1);
>
> Can we put this in platform data and parse in pixcir_parse_dt() please?
> Also, why not of_irq_get_byname()?
>
Ok.
>> + if (tsdata->wakeirq) {
>> + error = dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev,
>> + tsdata->wakeirq);
>> + if (error)
>> + dev_dbg(dev, "unable to get wakeirq %d\n",
>> + error);
>> + }
>
> Shouldn't his actually be:
>
> error = tsdata->wakeirq ?
> dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev, tsdata->wakeirq) :
> dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, client->irq);
> if (error) {
> ...
> }
>
> and then we can get rid of enable_irq_wake()/disable_irq_wake() in
> pixcir_i2c_ts_suspend() and pixcir_i2c_ts_resume().
>
Yes, I will do this in v2.
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static int pixcir_i2c_ts_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>> {
>> + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&client->dev);
>> device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, 0);
>
> 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.
Regards
Vignesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
2015-07-20 4:48 ` Vignesh R
@ 2015-07-20 6:05 ` Tony Lindgren
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Lindgren @ 2015-07-20 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vignesh R
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov, Benoit Cousson, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll,
Mark Rutland, Ian Campbell, Kumar Gala, Russell King,
Quadros, Roger, Henrik Rydberg, Frodo Lai, Jingoo Han,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org
* 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.
Regards,
Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
@ 2015-07-20 6:05 ` Tony Lindgren
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Lindgren @ 2015-07-20 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
* 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.
Regards,
Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
2015-07-20 6:05 ` Tony Lindgren
(?)
@ 2015-07-20 6:33 ` Dmitry Torokhov
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Torokhov @ 2015-07-20 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Lindgren
Cc: Mark Rutland, Frodo Lai, Jingoo Han, Russell King, Vignesh R,
Pawel Moll, Ian Campbell, Henrik Rydberg,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Rob Herring, Benoit Cousson, Kumar Gala,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Quadros, Roger
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
@ 2015-07-20 6:33 ` Dmitry Torokhov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Torokhov @ 2015-07-20 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Lindgren
Cc: Vignesh R, Benoit Cousson, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll, Mark Rutland,
Ian Campbell, Kumar Gala, Russell King, Quadros, Roger,
Henrik Rydberg, Frodo Lai, Jingoo Han, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
@ 2015-07-20 6:33 ` Dmitry Torokhov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Torokhov @ 2015-07-20 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
2015-07-20 6:33 ` Dmitry Torokhov
(?)
@ 2015-07-20 9:48 ` Tony Lindgren
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Lindgren @ 2015-07-20 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Torokhov
Cc: Vignesh R, Benoit Cousson, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll, Mark Rutland,
Ian Campbell, Kumar Gala, Russell King, Quadros, Roger,
Henrik Rydberg, Frodo Lai, Jingoo Han,
linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-input-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
* Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> [150719 23:36]:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:05:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Vignesh R <vigneshr-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> [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.
Yes you're right we can do that. I was mostly commenting on why we
currently can't automate things further with devm.
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
@ 2015-07-20 9:48 ` Tony Lindgren
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Lindgren @ 2015-07-20 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Torokhov
Cc: Vignesh R, Benoit Cousson, Rob Herring, Pawel Moll, Mark Rutland,
Ian Campbell, Kumar Gala, Russell King, Quadros, Roger,
Henrik Rydberg, Frodo Lai, Jingoo Han, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org
* Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> [150719 23:36]:
> 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.
Yes you're right we can do that. I was mostly commenting on why we
currently can't automate things further with devm.
Regards,
Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt
@ 2015-07-20 9:48 ` Tony Lindgren
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Lindgren @ 2015-07-20 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
* Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> [150719 23:36]:
> 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.
Yes you're right we can do that. I was mostly commenting on why we
currently can't automate things further with devm.
Regards,
Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread