On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 1:28 AM Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:13:11PM -0600, Raul E Rangel wrote: > > Device tree already has a mechanism to pass the wake_irq. It does this > > by looking for the wakeup-source property and setting the > > I2C_CLIENT_WAKE flag. This CL adds the ACPI equivalent. It uses the > > ACPI interrupt wake flag to determine if the interrupt can be used to > > wake the system. Previously the i2c drivers had to make assumptions and > > blindly enable the wake IRQ. This can cause spurious wake events. e.g., > > If there is a device with an Active Low interrupt and the device gets > > powered off while suspending, the interrupt line will go low since it's > > no longer powered and wakes the system. For this reason we should > > respect the board designers wishes and honor the wake bit defined on the > > interrupt. > > I'll let the I2C ACPI maintainers deal with the technical details > because they are the experts here, yet one minor thing hits my eye: > > > + irq_ctx.irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get_wake( > > + adev, 0, &irq_ctx.wake_capable); > > That line split looks weird with the open parens at the end of line 1. > Ah, looks like I missed `clang-format` on that line. I can fix it in the next revision. Thanks
