On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 03:42:47PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > Hi Jeffy, > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:55:09PM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote: > > Allow specifying a different interrupt trigger type for wakeup when > > using the gpio-keys input device as a wakeup source. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt | 9 +++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt > > index a94940481e55..61926cef708f 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/gpio-keys.txt > > @@ -26,6 +26,15 @@ Optional subnode-properties: > > If not specified defaults to 5. > > - wakeup-source: Boolean, button can wake-up the system. > > (Legacy property supported: "gpio-key,wakeup") > > + - wakeup-trigger-type: Specifies the interrupt trigger type for wakeup. > > + The value is defined in <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h> > > Do you really want to codify interrupt triggers here? It seems like most > of the information about edge vs. level is already codified elsewhere, > so this becomes a little redundant. And in fact, some bindings may be > specifying a "gpio", not technically an interrupt (at least not > directly), so it feels weird to apply IRQ_* flags to them right here. > Anyway, I think he only piece you really want to describe here is, do we > wake on "event asserted", "event deasserted", or both. (The "none" case > would just mean you shouldn't have the "wakeup-source" property.) > > So maybe: > > wakeup-trigger-type: Specifies whether the key should wake the > system when asserted, when deasserted, or both. This property is > only valid for keys that wake up the system (e.g., when the > "wakeup-source" property is also provided). Supported values > are: > 1: asserted As wakeup is an IRQ, that's assumed. > 2: deasserted Just invert the flags for the IRQ. > 3: both asserted and deasserted I don't see what would be the usecase. But wouldn't this be any edge (because level certainly doesn't make sense)? > > ? We could still make macros out of those, if we want > (input/linux-event-codes.h?). And then leave it up to the driver to > determine how to translate that into the appropriate edge or level > triggers. > > Brian > > > + Only the following flags are supported: > > + IRQ_TYPE_NONE > > + IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING > > + IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING > > + IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH > > + IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH > > + IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW > > - linux,can-disable: Boolean, indicates that button is connected > > to dedicated (not shared) interrupt which can be disabled to > > suppress events from the button. > > -- > > 2.11.0 > > > > -- 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
