> >> You do not need this property, if driver assumes that. Just enable it > >> unconditionally. > > > > The goal of this patch series is to change exactly that: to prevent > > the driver from unconditionally enabling the irq for wake. > > But why? What is the problem being solved? Is unconditional wakeup in > the driver incorrect? If so, mention it shortly in the commit msg, what > is rationale because existing one does not justify this change. The cover letter talks about it: "Currently the cros_ec driver assumes that its associated interrupt is wake capable. This is an incorrect assumption as some Chromebooks use a separate wake pin, while others overload the interrupt for wake and IO." With the current assumption, spurious wakes can occur on systems that use a separate wake pin. I can add wording to the dts patches to help clarify. > > The driver works across numerous buses (spi, uart, i2c, lpc) and > > supports DT and ACPI. > > SPI+DT systems all happen to need irq wake enabled. > > > >> I don't think anything from previous discussion was > >> resolved. > > > > Which previous discussion do you mean? In v1 it was suggested to split > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231213221124.GB2115075-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/ Hmm, I thought that was addressed [2]. I was referencing the existing binding documentation. From there, there was discussion about updating the docs to clarify what was actually intended (patch 3 in this series). I also addressed the ABI break concern in the thread and mentioned it in patch 22. "For device tree base systems, it is not an issue as the relevant device tree entries have been updated and DTS is built from source for each ChromeOS update." Is there a specific concern you feel is not resolved? Or can I make something more clear? [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CANg-bXCG61HFW7JFuAd3k+OrCG_F9F3e8brjM-pmBauS53aobQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
