From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Mack Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: misc: add gpio wakeup driver Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:02:13 +0200 Message-ID: <524BFD35.5040100@gmail.com> References: <1380635719-31171-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <524AD693.6000304@gmail.com> <20131002105723.GA27287@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from mail-ea0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]:65228 "EHLO mail-ea0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753380Ab3JBLCT (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 07:02:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20131002105723.GA27287@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Fabio Estevam , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kernel , Linus Walleij , Greg Kroah-Hartman On 02.10.2013 12:57, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >> On 01.10.2013 16:01, Fabio Estevam wrote: > >>> Isn't it the same as the existing 'gpio-key,wakeup' ? > >> Of course, I know the gpio-input driver can provide similar >> functionality. My intention was just provide a way to wake up the system >> without registering an input device for signals nobody is interested in >> eventually. > >> Don't know if that's reason enough to add a new driver though. > > It does seem somewhat sensible - the signal might not have a sensible > representation as an input device and the gpio-keys binding needs one. > That was my intention as well, yes. Also, a system that does not have any input devices could in theory disable CONFIG_INPUT alltogether. Not sure how realisitic that scenario really is nowadays, but using the gpio input driver for purpose of just waking up on LAN seems somewhat abusive. Daniel