On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 9:22 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 07:52:22AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > if: > > properties: > > interrupt-names: > > contains: > > const: wakeup > > required: > > - interrupt-names > > then: > > required: > > - wakeup-source > > That seems to say that if we have a device that has an interrupt called > "wakeup" then it must be a wakeup source. Is that desirable? Being > able to wake the system is partly a property of the system as a whole > (the wakeup signal needs to be wired somewhere where it can wake things) > and a device might have a signal that could be used to wake the system, > may even be called "wakeup" by the device but for some reason isn't > wired suitably in a given system. Perhaps it is too strict. It would be useful as a "Did you forget wakeup-source?" message, but we don't have a way to distinguish that. Rob
