Hi, Trying to catch up on this thread... On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 01:57:07AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 2:06:47 AM CET JeffyChen wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > > > Thanks for your reply :) > > > > On 12/26/2017 08:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >> >+ > > >> >+ dn = pci_device_to_OF_node(ppdev); > > >> >+ if (!dn) > > >> >+ return 0; > > >> >+ > > >> >+ irq = of_irq_get_byname(dn, "wakeup"); > > > Why is this a property of the bridge and not of the device itself? Wait, isn't 'dn' the port node, not the bridge node? > > That is suggested by Brian, because in that way, the wakeup pin would > > not "tied to what exact device is installed (or no device, if it's a slot)." I believe my thinking has evolved a bit over time, and I definitely am not the one true authority on this. I'll explain my main concerns, and whatever solution resolves these concerns is fine with me. * I was primarily interested in avoiding handling WAKE# in the endpoint drivers (e.g., as mwifiex is today). * I was also interested in not having to redefine a new DT device node (with new "pciABCD,1234" compatible property) for each new device attached. That just won't work for removable cards. I need to reread the rest of this thread a few times to really understand what Rafael and Tony are discussing. But I feel like some of this is still moving away from the second point above. > But I don't think it works when there are two devices using different WAKE# > interrupt lines under the same bridge. Or how does it work then? Brian -- 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
