On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:04 PM, jeffy <jeffy.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> 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? As you point out, it is already documented in a common place. In SPI makes no sense. Are you going to document in I2C, simple-bus, USB, etc. as well? wakeup-source is really a property of the system (the upstream interrupt controller in particular), so it doesn't really need to be documented per device. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
