From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 02:48:03 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] input: touchscreen: pixcir_i2c_ts: Add support for optional wakeup interrupt In-Reply-To: <20150720063323.GC13092@dtor-ws> References: <1437115241-17859-1-git-send-email-vigneshr@ti.com> <1437115241-17859-2-git-send-email-vigneshr@ti.com> <20150717215122.GC39282@dtor-ws> <55AC7DA1.9050002@ti.com> <20150720060506.GV17550@atomide.com> <20150720063323.GC13092@dtor-ws> Message-ID: <20150720094803.GY17550@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Dmitry Torokhov [150719 23:36]: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:05:07PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Vignesh R [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