From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755424AbcAROqu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:46:50 -0500
Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:48149 "HELO
	v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with SMTP id S1755037AbcAROqr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:46:47 -0500
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>,
        Uwe =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kleine=2DK=F6nig?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver-core: platform: automatically mark wakeup devices
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:47:27 +0100
Message-ID: <2182115.GafOXid1Dx@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.4.0; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20160118021138.GA20498@dtor-ws>
References: <20160118021138.GA20498@dtor-ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 06:11:38 PM Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> When probing platform drivers let's check if corresponding devices have
> "wakeup-source" property defined (either in device tree, ACPI, or static
> platform properties) and automatically enable such devices as wakeup
> sources for the system. This will help us standardize on the name for this
> property and reduce amount of boilerplate code in the drivers.

ACPI has other ways of telling the OS that the device is wakeup-capable,
but I guess the property in question can be used too (as long as it is
consistent with the other methods).

> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/platform.c | 9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> index 1dd6d3b..d14071a 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> @@ -514,9 +514,14 @@ static int platform_drv_probe(struct device *_dev)
>  
>  	ret = dev_pm_domain_attach(_dev, true);
>  	if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER && drv->probe) {
> +		bool wakeup = device_property_read_bool(_dev, "wakeup-source");
> +
> +		device_init_wakeup(_dev, wakeup);

But I'm wondering if this should be device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, true) rather?

device_init_wakeup() additionally sets the default in sysfs to "do wakeup"
which in principle may unblock spurious wakeups on some systems.

>  		ret = drv->probe(dev);
> -		if (ret)
> +		if (ret) {
> +			device_init_wakeup(_dev, false);
>  			dev_pm_domain_detach(_dev, true);
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  	if (drv->prevent_deferred_probe && ret == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> @@ -540,6 +545,8 @@ static int platform_drv_remove(struct device *_dev)
>  
>  	if (drv->remove)
>  		ret = drv->remove(dev);
> +
> +	device_init_wakeup(_dev, false);
>  	dev_pm_domain_detach(_dev, true);
>  
>  	return ret;
> 

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.