lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 2/6] dt-bindings: spi/core: add wakeup-source optional property
Hi Rob,

On 06/27/2017 12:40 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:00:11AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 06:01:49PM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
>>> Update document devicetree bindings to support "wakeup-source" property.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v3: None
>>>
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-bus.txt | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-bus.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-bus.txt
>>> index 1f6e86f..0fa1ccf 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-bus.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-bus.txt
>>> @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ All slave nodes can contain the following optional properties:
>>> Defaults to 1 if not present.
>>> - spi-rx-delay-us - Microsecond delay after a read transfer.
>>> - spi-tx-delay-us - Microsecond delay after a write transfer.
>>> +- wakeup-source - Device can be used as a wakeup source.
>>
>> wakeup-source is valid for any device with an interrupts property
>> already, so I don't think this is necessary.
i saw http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1510.2/04553.html add a
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/wakeup-source.txt for this, but
that serial didn't remove all wakeup-source property from other
bindings, but standardize them, for example:
71a0151 Documentation: devicetree: fix reference to legacy wakeup properties

+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ Optional subnode-properties:
- debounce-interval: Debouncing interval time in milliseconds.
If not specified defaults to 5.
- wakeup-source: Boolean, button can wake-up the system.
+ (Legacy property supported: "gpio-key,wakeup")

>
> Do you mean it is not necessary on SPI level or not necessary at all? Or
> you disagree with wording? Because we do need a way to say that on given
> platform the device is supposed to be configured as a wakeup source.
>
> Thanks.
>

Hi guys,

Mark Brown suggested to put wakeup-source support in some common place
instead of sub drivers, should we do that?
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-27 04:05    [W:3.661 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site