From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lina Iyer Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: msm: Pass along set_wake failures Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:04:32 -0600 Message-ID: <20180712200432.GA887@codeaurora.org> References: <20180619234349.166190-1-evgreen@chromium.org> <20180709173022.GH2050@tuxbook-pro> <20180710203805.GA14825@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Evan Green Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Linus Walleij , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, swboyd@chromium.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 12 2018 at 10:31 -0600, Evan Green wrote: >On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:38 PM Lina Iyer wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 10 2018 at 12:53 -0600, Evan Green wrote: >> >On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:27 AM Bjorn Andersson >> > wrote: >> >Our understanding is the downstream kernel had an interrupt hierarchy >> >of GIC > PDC > TLMM & everybody else. In the downstream world PDC >> >acted transparently, forwarding most requests directly onto the GIC, >> >but quietly handling wake interrupts as well. With the upstream PDC >> >driver, the #interrupt-cells got changed to 2, and it seemed like >> >folks didn't like the idea that PDC was acting transparently. Correct >> >me if I'm wrong there. So now we're sort of unsure about how to wire >> >in PDC. If we make everybody an interrupt child of PDC, then we lose >> >the ability to specify the third GIC parameter, and we're stuck >> >expressing interrupts with respect to PDC pins, which is an awkward >> >mental translation. >> Its an unfortunate side effect of the design. Drivers will have to >> request the PDC pin for wakeup IRQs. > >Would they use the PDC pin to request their regular interrupt, and the >PDC would turn around and ask the GIC for them, and also enable the >wakeup interrupt?> Yes, drivers would need to request a PDC pin since using the interrupts-extended format and then enable that interrupt was a wakeup interrupt. > Or would devices have some sort of separate entry for wakeup > interrupts? Not sure how you mean. If it's the DT you are asking, then yes, they would need to have a separate entry in DT. wake-device { interrupts-extended = <&pdc 2 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; }; See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/qcom,pdc.txt Thanks, Lina