From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] spi: dt-bindings: spi-controller: add wakeup-source and interrupts Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:43:23 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20191112055412.192675-1-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20191112055412.192675-2-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20191112120307.GB5195@sirena.co.uk> <20191112190328.GA199853@dtor-ws> <20191112191547.GK5195@sirena.co.uk> <20191112193653.GB13374@dtor-ws> <20191114222652.GA7517@bogus> <20191115152221.GA4210@sirena.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , lkml , linux-spi , Mark Rutland , DTML To: Mark Brown Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20191115152221.GA4210@sirena.co.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 9:22 AM Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 07:52:22AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > if: > > properties: > > interrupt-names: > > contains: > > const: wakeup > > required: > > - interrupt-names > > then: > > required: > > - wakeup-source > > That seems to say that if we have a device that has an interrupt called > "wakeup" then it must be a wakeup source. Is that desirable? Being > able to wake the system is partly a property of the system as a whole > (the wakeup signal needs to be wired somewhere where it can wake things) > and a device might have a signal that could be used to wake the system, > may even be called "wakeup" by the device but for some reason isn't > wired suitably in a given system. Perhaps it is too strict. It would be useful as a "Did you forget wakeup-source?" message, but we don't have a way to distinguish that. Rob