Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:04:07 +0800 | From | jeffy <> | Subject | Re: [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?
| |