Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:32:13 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Raul E Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org>
Cc:     linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
        timvp@google.com, hdegoede@redhat.com, rafael@kernel.org,
        mario.limonciello@amd.com, jingle.wu@emc.com.tw,
        mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/13] i2c: acpi: Use ACPI wake capability bit to set
 wake_irq
Message-ID: <Yymyzcfp7gqdTYam@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220919155916.1044219-1-rrangel@chromium.org>
 <20220919095504.v4.7.I8af4282adc72eb9f247adcd03676a43893a020a6@changeid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220919095504.v4.7.I8af4282adc72eb9f247adcd03676a43893a020a6@changeid>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:59:09AM -0600, Raul E Rangel wrote:
> Device tree already has a mechanism to pass the wake_irq. It does this
> by looking for the wakeup-source property and setting the
> I2C_CLIENT_WAKE flag. This CL adds the ACPI equivalent. It uses the
> ACPI interrupt wake flag to determine if the interrupt can be used to
> wake the system. Previously the i2c drivers had to make assumptions and
> blindly enable the wake IRQ. This can cause spurious wake events. e.g.,
> If there is a device with an Active Low interrupt and the device gets
> powered off while suspending, the interrupt line will go low since it's
> no longer powered and wakes the system. For this reason we should
> respect the board designers wishes and honor the wake bit defined on the
> interrupt.

...

> +	if (irq_ctx.irq == -ENOENT)
> +		irq_ctx.irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get(adev, 0, &irq_ctx.wake_capable);

I just realized, that there is an inconsistency on how we fill the wake_capable
parameter. In some cases we check for IRQ for an error condition (IRQ not found)
and in some the wake_capable still be filled.

Here the best approach I believe is to add

	if (irq_ctx.irq < 0)
		return irq_ctx.irq;

I.o.w. we apply the rule "do not fill the output parameters when it's known
to be an error condition".

> +	if (wake_capable)
> +		*wake_capable = irq_ctx.wake_capable;

> +	return irq_ctx.irq;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko