From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753055AbdJSLUZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:20:25 -0400 Received: from regular1.263xmail.com ([211.150.99.140]:39145 "EHLO regular1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752967AbdJSLUD (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:20:03 -0400 X-263anti-spam: KSV:0; X-MAIL-GRAY: 0 X-MAIL-DELIVERY: 1 X-KSVirus-check: 0 X-ABS-CHECKED: 4 X-RL-SENDER: jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com X-FST-TO: helgaas@kernel.org X-SENDER-IP: 103.29.142.67 X-LOGIN-NAME: jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com X-UNIQUE-TAG: <926678b7fbbece0f5d43b52dc874a0d5> X-ATTACHMENT-NUM: 0 X-DNS-TYPE: 0 Message-ID: <59E88A5D.8060309@rock-chips.com> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 19:19:57 +0800 From: jeffy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20130126 Thunderbird/19.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bjorn Helgaas , Brian Norris CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, shawn.lin@rock-chips.com, dianders@chromium.org, Heiko Stuebner , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] PCI: rockchip: Add support for pcie wake irq References: <20171013195059.23865-1-jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com> <20171013195059.23865-2-jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com> <20171016200350.GH25517@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20171018010312.GB65743@google.com> <20171018132936.GP5641@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> In-Reply-To: <20171018132936.GP5641@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi guys, On 10/18/2017 09:29 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> > >> >I guess it could work to look into pci_create_root_bus(), and >> >do something like the following? >> > >> > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && parent && parent->of_node) >> > ... do OF parsing for generic features like WAKE# ... > That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking. > i was looking at that too, but i'm not very clear about how to handle the platform_ops's set_wakeup...