From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] pinctrl: Allow indicating loss of state across suspend/resume Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:15:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20171102231551.16220-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:50807 "EHLO mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932201AbdKBXQt (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:16:49 -0400 Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Cc: Florian Fainelli , Linus Walleij , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , open list , ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com, tony@atomide.com, ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, swarren@nvidia.com, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, alcooperx@gmail.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com Hello Linus, It's me again, so I have been thinking about the problem originally reported in: [PATCH fixes v3] pinctrl: Really force states during suspend/resume and other similar patches a while ago, and this new version allows a platform using pinctrl-single to specify whether its pins are going to lose their state during a system deep sleep. Note that this is still checked at the pinctrl_select_state() because consumers of the pinctrl API might be calling this from their suspend/resume functions and should not have to know whether the provider does lose its pin states. This is against your pinctrl/for-next branch. Thanks! Changes in v2: - make the property generic and not specific to pinctrl-single Florian Fainelli (2): pinctrl: Allow a device to indicate when to force a state pinctrl: Allow indicating loss of pin states during low-power .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt | 4 ++++ drivers/pinctrl/core.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- drivers/pinctrl/core.h | 4 ++++ 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.9.3