On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 01:53:52PM +0100, oskar.andero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 10:43 Tue 15 Nov , Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:26:00AM +0100, oskar.andero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Courtney Cavin <courtney.cavin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > +static int gp2a_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > > + struct gp2a_data *dt = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > > + int error;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&dt->device->mutex);
> > > +
> > > + if (dt->device->users) {
> > > + if (device_may_wakeup(&client->dev)) {
> > > + enable_irq_wake(client->irq);
> >
> > I think this part should happen regardless of whether device has users,
> > only non wakeup source case needs it.
>
> Hmm.. why would one want to enable irq_wake when there are no users?
> Wouldn't this cause the device to wakeup at every irq and report an
> switch event that no one listens to?
You are suspending the system and want to have this device as a wakeup
source. Note: not wake up _device_ at every IRQ but wake up the whole
_system_ when device generates an IRQ while system is asleep.
It does not matter whether there are users for the events; you
want the system to wake up.
At least this is the usual semantics.
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
