On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 1:22 AM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:20:12PM -0600, Raul Rangel wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 1:38 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 9:27 PM Raul Rangel <rrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 1:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 6:19 PM Raul E Rangel <rrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ACPI IRQ/Interrupt resources contain a bit that describes if the > > > > > > interrupt should wake the system. This change exposes that bit via > > > > > > a new IORESOURCE_IRQ_WAKECAPABLE flag. Drivers should check this flag > > > > > > > > > > I would call this IORESOURCE_IRQ_WAKE which is (a) simpler and easier > > > > > to read and (b) it sort of matches the "wakeirq" naming convention. > > > > > > > > It was Dmitry who originally suggested the name. I personally like the > > > > CAPABLE in the name. It makes it clear that it's capable of acting as > > > > a wake source, not to be confused with being enabled as a wake source. > > > > > > Well, so be it then. > > > > > > As I said elsewhere, I can apply this patch too if that's useful at this point. > > > > > > > We just need to make sure the ACPI patches 5-8 land before the i2c > > patches 9-13. The i2c patches 1-4 can land before or after the ACPI > > changes. I'm not sure how things get coordinated across subsystems. > > I am fine with all input stuff going through ACPI tree to ease landing. > Or I can pick up everything if Rafael and Jiri/Benjamin agree. I think that patches [5-8/13] from this series are significant framework changes, so it would make sense to route them via the ACPI tree. If this is fine with everybody, I will queue them up for merging into 6.1 (probably in the second half of the upcoming merge window).
