On 11/03/2017 03:37 AM, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> Hello Linus, >> >> It's me again, so I have been thinking about the problem originally >> reported in: [PATCH fixes v3] pinctrl: Really force states during suspend/resume >> >> and other similar patches a while ago, and this new version allows a platform >> using pinctrl-single to specify whether its pins are going to lose their state >> during a system deep sleep. >> >> Note that this is still checked at the pinctrl_select_state() because consumers >> of the pinctrl API might be calling this from their suspend/resume functions >> and should not have to know whether the provider does lose its pin states. >> > > Still feels to me like it should be the providers job to the > restore the state rather than expecting the consumer to > re-request any state it had. But lets wait and see what Linus > thinks. The mechanism is generic, but the property needs to be placed at the pinctrl provider level anyways. > > Also not sure if you have seen this chain, but probably worth a > look: > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg200649.html > > It is adding support to the GPIO code for controllers that can > have options to retain state across reset, not the same but > probably at least slightly related to this series. Let me take a closer look and see how much appears applicable. > > Thanks, > Charles > -- Florian -- 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
