On 21/12/2023 20:24, Mark Hasemeyer wrote: >>>> 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. This sentence would be enough. > 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? > Seems fine, thanks. Best regards, Krzysztof
