> > I think it is a useful addition. Can someone add a paragraph describing > > this handling on top of the new generic i2c binding docs? > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/505368/ > > Yes, I will. Great, thanks! > > > > > > @@ -659,20 +662,47 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev) > > > if (!device_can_wakeup(&client->dev)) > > > device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, > > > client->flags & I2C_CLIENT_WAKE); > > > > I was about to ask if we couldn't combine this and the later if-blocks > > with an if-else combination. But now I stumble over the above block in > > general: If the device cannot cause wake ups, then we might initialize > > it as a wakeup-device depending on client->flags?? > > I believe it is done so that we do not try to re-add wakeup source after > unbinding/rebinding the device. With my patch we clearing wakeup flag on > unbind, so it is OK, but there is still error path where we might want > to reset the wakeup flag as well. I was wondering if it wants to achieve that, why does it not unconditionally use 0 instead of the WAKE flag.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
