On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 8:30 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:05:16PM -0700, Mark Hasemeyer wrote: > > > If a device has multiple interrupts, but none named "wakeup" you are > > > saying all the interrupts are wakeup capable. That's not right though. > > > Only the device knows which interrupts are wakeup capable. You need: > > > > > > return wakeindex >= 0 && wakeindex == index; > > > > I was assuming logic described in the DT bindings: > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/wakeup-source.txt > > "Also, if device is marked as a wakeup source, then all the primary > > interrupt(s) can be used as wakeup interrupt(s)." > > Also not the best wording I think. > > Which interrupts are primary interrupts? > > If we can't determine which interrupt, then we should just leave it up > to the device. > > Rob +Sudeep who authored the documentation and Rob Ack'd: a68eee4c748c ("Documentation: devicetree: standardize/consolidate on "wakeup-source" property") I think what Rob is suggesting more closely matches what ACPI supports: where interrupt resources are individually marked as wake capable. The binding documentation should be updated though. Something like: ``` If the device is marked as a wakeup-source, interrupt wake capability depends on the device specific "interrupt-names" property. If no interrupts are labeled as wake capable, then it is up to the device to determine which interrupts can wake the system. However if a device has a dedicated interrupt as the wakeup source, then it needs to specify/identify it using a device specific interrupt name. In such cases only that interrupt can be used as a wakeup interrupt. While various legacy interrupt names exist, new devices should use "wakeup" as the canonical interrupt name. ``` Parts of the kernel (I2C, bluetooth, MMC) assume "wakeup" as the interrupt-name. I added some wording to clarify the assumption. Thoughts?
