From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752270AbdJ0F5v (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:57:51 -0400 Received: from regular1.263xmail.com ([211.150.99.139]:53999 "EHLO regular1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751076AbdJ0F5r (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:57:47 -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: briannorris@chromium.org X-SENDER-IP: 103.29.142.67 X-LOGIN-NAME: jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com X-UNIQUE-TAG: X-ATTACHMENT-NUM: 0 X-DNS-TYPE: 0 Message-ID: <59F2CABE.1080702@rock-chips.com> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:57:18 +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: Brian Norris CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, tony@atomide.com, shawn.lin@rock-chips.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, dianders@chromium.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 1/7] dt-bindings: PCI: Add definition of PCIe WAKE# irq and PCI irq References: <20171026132840.20946-1-jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com> <20171026132840.20946-2-jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com> <20171027023331.GA11665@google.com> <59F2A2BA.5030307@rock-chips.com> <20171027054025.GA85582@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20171027054025.GA85582@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 Brian, On 10/27/2017 01:40 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > Another odd thing about this series is that the interrupt doesn't > actually show up in /proc/interrupts, /sys/kernel/debug/gpio, or > similar, seemingly because the wakeirq is requested/released every time > we suspend/resume. So it's really not that obvious that the interrupt is > being configured properly. That's not really a functional problem, > necessarily, but it doesn't quite seem ideal. > right, so maybe we can call dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq() in the setup(), and use device_set_wakeup_enable() to enable/disable it in the set_wakeup()? > Brian