On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Add an attribute 'wakeup' to the GPIO sysfs interface which allows > marking/unmarking a GPIO as wake IRQ. > The file 'wakeup' is created in each exported GPIOs directory, if an IRQ > is associated with that GPIO and the irqchip implements set_wake(). > Writing 'enabled' to that file will enable wake for that GPIO, while > writing 'disabled' will disable wake. > Reading that file will return either 'disabled' or 'enabled' depening on > the currently set flag for the GPIO's IRQ. > > Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v3: > - add documentation > v2: > - fix error path to unlock mutex before return (...) Looking better! > + "wakeup" ... reads as either "enabled" or "disabled". Write these > + strings to set/clear the 'wakeup' flag of the IRQ associated > + with this GPIO. If the IRQ has the 'wakeup' flag set, it can > + wake the system from sleep states. > + > + This file exists only if the pin can generate interrupts and > + the driver implements the required infrastructure. Should this not be 0/1 rather than the string "enabled"/"disabled"? I think that is the common pattern in sysfs? Not sure, but want an indication from the ABI people. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
