On 20 April 2016 at 10:24, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 18 April 2016 at 15:39, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static bool rcar_sysc_active_wakeup(struct device *dev)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return true;
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested to know why this is always returning true. Perhaps you
>>>>> can elaborate a bit on that?
>>>>
>>>> Too many copying from old shmobile PM Domain code?
>>>> Honestly, I don't know...
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Rafael still remembers the original rationale, as git history for
>>>> commit e3e0109138376bb2 ("ARM / shmobile: Support for I/O power domains for
>>>> SH7372 (v9)") doesn't have it.
>>>>
>>>> Google did find: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/30/471
>>>>
>>>> Do we still need this at all? I.e. aren't PM Domains containing wake-up
>>>> devices kept powered automatically during system suspend?
>>>
>>> No they aren't. So for pm-rmobile we do need it.
>>
>> I don't quite understand why genpd should need to treat all devices
>> within the same domain exactly the same, it seems suboptimal.
>>
>> I guess it would be more clever to allow this to be controlled on per
>> device basis instead, so let's say from each driver.
>
> Perhaps this can be handled through device_set_wakeup_enable()?
Yes, the pm_wakeirq API should help with all what is needed.
> Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be called from e.g. gpio-keys.
>
Okay, so it's a matter of deployment for these devices/drivers.
A list of such drivers/devices that needs to be fixed would be great
to have. :-)
Kind regards
Uffe
