From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756015AbdKCRDc (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:03:32 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:49142 "EHLO mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751381AbdKCRDa (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:03:30 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TN8FilzchLg5zNV9W9Pa9mhk6T8NPhWmhL7o1neHwUAq19eCkDdiuw2IPY+iuvkqRllR9b2A== Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] pinctrl: Allow indicating loss of state across suspend/resume To: Charles Keepax Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , open list , tony@atomide.com, ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, swarren@nvidia.com, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, alcooperx@gmail.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com References: <20171102231551.16220-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20171103103707.3e5wb3c7foxbuvvg@localhost.localdomain> From: Florian Fainelli Message-ID: <76a2b3a9-282e-c3d0-a93b-b75a511806c6@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:03:22 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171103103707.3e5wb3c7foxbuvvg@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/03/2017 03:37 AM, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> Hello Linus, >> >> It's me again, so I have been thinking about the problem originally >> reported in: [PATCH fixes v3] pinctrl: Really force states during suspend/resume >> >> and other similar patches a while ago, and this new version allows a platform >> using pinctrl-single to specify whether its pins are going to lose their state >> during a system deep sleep. >> >> Note that this is still checked at the pinctrl_select_state() because consumers >> of the pinctrl API might be calling this from their suspend/resume functions >> and should not have to know whether the provider does lose its pin states. >> > > Still feels to me like it should be the providers job to the > restore the state rather than expecting the consumer to > re-request any state it had. But lets wait and see what Linus > thinks. The mechanism is generic, but the property needs to be placed at the pinctrl provider level anyways. > > Also not sure if you have seen this chain, but probably worth a > look: > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg200649.html > > It is adding support to the GPIO code for controllers that can > have options to retain state across reset, not the same but > probably at least slightly related to this series. Let me take a closer look and see how much appears applicable. > > Thanks, > Charles > -- Florian