* Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> [171230 00:24]: > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > No, you need a wakeirq properly for the child *device* and that > > property will be consumed by the PCI layer. > > Or, if you use the convention mentioned in another message in this > thread, you can make the wakeirq be a property of a bridge (port) with > the clarification of the assumption that WAKE# is shared by all > functions below the bridge. So the presence of the "wakeirq" property > for a bridge (in addition to providing the wakeup IRQ) will mean that > it applies to all devices below the bridge. Yes that makes sense from device tree point of view. > In the case of parallel PCI (not PCIe), there may be multiple "slots" > (or "PCI devices" consisting each of multiple functions) under one > bridge and in theory each of them may use a different IRQ for WAKE# > signaling, so the above convention will not work then. OK. In that case the wakeirq would have to be mapped to each PCI device if there is no other way to describe where the slot WAKE# line is wired to. I guess the PCI controller could go through the child devices and map the wakeirqs that way if needed. Regards, Tony -- 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
