On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Linus, > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Since commit ab82fa7da4dce5c7 ("gpio: rcar: Prevent module clock disable >>> when wake-up is enabled"), when a GPIO is used for wakeup, the GPIO block's >>> module clock (if exists) is manually kept running during system suspend, to >>> make sure the device stays active. >>> >>> However, this explicit clock handling is merely a workaround for a failure >>> to properly communicate wakeup information to the PM core. Instead, set the >>> WAKEUP_PATH driver PM flag to indicate that the device is part of the >>> wakeup path, which further also enables middle-layers and PM domains (like >>> genpd) to act on this. >>> >>> In case the device is attached to genpd and depending on if it has an >>> active wakeup configuration, genpd will keep the device active (the clock >>> running) during system suspend when needed. This enables us to remove all >>> explicit clock handling code from the driver, so let's do that as well. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> >>> [Ulf: Converted to use the WAKEUP_PATH driver PM flag] >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> I guess it is dependent on the other patches? > > Yes, it depends on (a) a clock patch queued in clk-next for v4.16, and (b) a PM > patch introducing WAKEUP_PATH. Applying it prematurely will cause build > or runtime issues. Plus, I'm not going to apply the WAKEUP_PATH thing just yet. At least not in its current version. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html