> > When reviewing V2, I wasn't comfortable with just guessing what the old
> > code means. So, I did some digging and found:
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/8/10/204
> >
> > Quoting the interesting paragraph from David Brownell:
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Better would be to preserve any existing sett
Hi Wolfram,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> > > > @@ -659,20 +662,47 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev)
>> > > > if (!device_can_wakeup(&client->dev))
>> > > > device_init_wakeup(&client->dev,
>> > > >
> > > > @@ -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);
> > >
> > > I was
> > I think it is a useful addition. Can someone add a paragraph describing
> > this handling on top of the new generic i2c binding docs?
> >
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/505368/
>
> Yes, I will.
Great, thanks!
>
> >
> > > @@ -659,20 +662,47 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct dev
On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 05:22:55PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:14:31PM -0700, 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 disab
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:14:31PM -0700, 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 hav
* Dmitry Torokhov [150803 13:05]:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 03:21:21AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >
> > Hmm why do we need the check for if (device_can_wakeup(&client->dev)))?
>
> Because of the code in device_wakeup_attach_irq():
>
> ws = dev->power.wakeup;
> if (!ws) {
>
Hi Tony,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 03:21:21AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Vignesh R [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
* Vignesh R [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
>
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 th
10 matches
Mail list logo
