From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Li Yang-R58472 <r58472@freescale.com>
Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 <B07421@freescale.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Zhao Chenhui-B35336 <B35336@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] fsl_pmc: Add API to enable device as wakeup event source
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:11:36 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FCE2FB8.9080307@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <94F013E7935FF44C83EBE7784D62AD3F09335D27@039-SN2MPN1-022.039d.mgd.msft.net>
On 06/04/2012 11:08 PM, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wood Scott-B07421
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:03 AM
>> To: Zhao Chenhui-B35336
>> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
>> galak@kernel.crashing.org; Li Yang-R58472
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] fsl_pmc: Add API to enable device as wakeup
>> event source
>>
>> On 06/04/2012 06:36 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:08:52PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> On 05/11/2012 06:53 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote:
>>>>> +int mpc85xx_pmc_set_wake(struct platform_device *pdev, bool enable)
>>>>
>>>> Why does it have to be a platform_device? Would a bare device_node
>> work
>>>> here? If it's for stuff like device_may_wakeup() that could be in a
>>>> platform_device wrapper function.
>>>
>>> It does not have to be a platform_device. I think it can be a struct
>> device.
>>
>> Why does it even need that? The low level mechanism for influencing
>> PMCDR should only need a device node, not a Linux device struct.
>
> It does no harm to pass the device structure and makes more sense for object oriented interface design.
It does do harm if you don't have a device structure to pass, if for
some reason you found the device by directly looking for it rather than
going through the device model.
>>>> Who is setting can_wakeup for these devices?
>>>
>>> The device driver is responsible to set can_wakeup.
>>
>> How would the device driver know how to set it? Wouldn't this depend on
>> the particular SoC and low power mode?
>
> It is based on the "fsl,magic-packet" and "fsl,wake-on-filer" device tree properties.
fsl,magic-packet was a mistake. It is equivalent to checking the
compatible for etsec. It does not convey any information about whether
the eTSEC is still active in a given low power mode.
How is fsl,wake-os-filer relevant to this decision? When will it be set
but not fsl,magic-packet?
What about devices other than ethernet? What about differences between
ordinary sleep and deep sleep?
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-05 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-11 11:53 [PATCH v5 1/5] powerpc/85xx: implement hardware timebase sync Zhao Chenhui
2012-05-11 11:53 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] powerpc/85xx: add HOTPLUG_CPU support Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-01 21:27 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-04 11:04 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-04 16:32 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-05 11:18 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-05 16:15 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-06 9:59 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-06 18:19 ` Scott Wood
2012-05-11 11:53 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] powerpc/85xx: add sleep and deep sleep support Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-01 21:54 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-04 11:12 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-04 22:58 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-05 11:35 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-05 16:13 ` Scott Wood
2012-05-11 11:53 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] fsl_pmc: Add API to enable device as wakeup event source Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-01 22:08 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-04 11:36 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-04 23:02 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-05 4:08 ` Li Yang-R58472
2012-06-05 16:11 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2012-06-05 16:49 ` Li Yang-R58472
2012-06-05 18:05 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-06 4:06 ` Li Yang
2012-06-06 18:29 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-07 4:10 ` Li Yang
2012-05-11 11:53 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] powerpc/85xx: add support to JOG feature using cpufreq interface Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-01 23:30 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-05 10:59 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-05 15:58 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-06 10:19 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-05-29 7:30 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] powerpc/85xx: implement hardware timebase sync Li Yang
2012-05-29 12:20 ` [linuxppc-release] " Zhao Chenhui-B35336
2012-06-01 15:40 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-05 9:08 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-05 16:07 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-06 9:31 ` Zhao Chenhui
2012-06-06 18:26 ` Scott Wood
2012-06-07 4:07 ` Zhao Chenhui
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FCE2FB8.9080307@freescale.com \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=B07421@freescale.com \
--cc=B35336@freescale.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=r58472@freescale.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).