On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 07:47:35AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 05:26:44PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 09:31:06AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 11:17:22AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:14 AM Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > It should also not be used to > > > > > work around Linux driver implementation issues such as how to coordinate > > > > > the glue and core dwc3 drivers. > > > > > > > > > > For the Qualcomm dwc3 controllers, it is the glue device that manages > > > > > the wakeup interrupts, which may or may not be able to wake the system > > > > > up from system suspend. > > > > > > > > While the reasoning to add this may have been for QCom, having this > > > > property for other users makes sense. On some platforms, 'snps,dwc3' > > > > is the only node (i.e. there's no wrapper node). So I don't think this > > > > should be reverted. > > > > > > Fair enough. Let's keep it in the core child node then where we can > > > still retrieve from the glue parent directly. > > > > > > (I assume you're not suggesting also adding 'wakeup-source' to the qcom > > > glue node, which is where the actual wakeup interrupts live.) > > > > 'wakeup-source' belongs wherever the interrupt that causes wakeup is > > defined. > > Thanks for clarifying. That was my understanding as well, but I > misinterpreted your wish to keep the 'wakeup-source' property also in > the core node. > > My thought was that if it turns out that there are systems that do not > use a glue node but that do indeed support wakeup, then such a property > could be added back later. > > But let's keep it in the binding then. I realise it may not have been clear that the patch I suggested to revert was first merged for 6.0-rc1, in case that makes any difference. But I'll drop the revert unless I hear otherwise. Johan
