From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753140AbbHCKV0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 3 Aug 2015 06:21:26 -0400
Received: from muru.com ([72.249.23.125]:39953 "EHLO muru.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752078AbbHCKVZ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 3 Aug 2015 06:21:25 -0400
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:21:21 -0700
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: allow specifying separate wakeup interrupt in
 device tree
Message-ID: <20150803102121.GO16878@atomide.com>
References: <20150730201431.GA5255@dtor-ws>
 <55BB54B1.80603@ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55BB54B1.80603@ti.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

* Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> [150731 04:00]:
> On 07/31/2015 01:44 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Instead of having each i2c driver individually parse device tree data in
> > case it or platform supports separate wakeup interrupt, and handle
> > enabling and disabling wakeup interrupts in their power management
> > routines, let's have i2c core do that for us.

Good idea, yes the dedicated wake-up interrupts can be handled
at the bus level to keep device drivers generic.

One question below though..

> > @@ -639,11 +640,13 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev)
> >  	if (!client->irq) {
> >  		int irq = -ENOENT;
> >  
> > -		if (dev->of_node)
> > -			irq = of_irq_get(dev->of_node, 0);
> > -		else if (ACPI_COMPANION(dev))
> > +		if (dev->of_node) {
> > +			irq = of_irq_get_byname(dev->of_node, "irq");
> > +			if (irq == -EINVAL || irq == -ENODATA)
> > +				irq = of_irq_get(dev->of_node, 0);
> > +		} else if (ACPI_COMPANION(dev)) {
> >  			irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(ACPI_COMPANION(dev), 0);
> > -
> > +		}
> >  		if (irq == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> >  			return irq;
> >  		if (irq < 0)
> > @@ -659,20 +662,47 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev)
> >  	if (!device_can_wakeup(&client->dev))
> >  		device_init_wakeup(&client->dev,
> >  					client->flags & I2C_CLIENT_WAKE);
> > +
> > +	if (device_can_wakeup(&client->dev)) {
> > +		int wakeirq = -ENOENT;
> > +
> > +		if (dev->of_node) {
> > +			wakeirq = of_irq_get_byname(dev->of_node, "wakeup");
> > +			if (wakeirq == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > +				return wakeirq;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		if (wakeirq > 0 && wakeirq != client->irq)
> > +			status = dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq(dev, wakeirq);
> > +		else if (client->irq > 0)
> > +			status = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, wakeirq);
> > +		else
> > +			status = 0;

Hmm why do we need the check for if (device_can_wakeup(&client->dev)))?

Also wondering about the dev vs &client->dev usage here.. But I take
you have checked that we end up calling the runtime PM calls of the
client instead of the i2c bus controller :)

Regards,

Tony