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:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:01:03 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Rajat Khandelwal <rajat.khandelwal@intel.com>,
        andreas.noever@gmail.com, michael.jamet@intel.com,
        YehezkelShB@gmail.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thunderbolt: Add wake on connect/disconnect on USB4 ports
Message-ID: <YzPVDzI4K4cbG7Mk@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220928130005.2048724-1-rajat.khandelwal@intel.com>
 <YzMpaa1V492X52/J@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YzMpaa1V492X52/J@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Greg,

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 06:48:41PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:30:05PM +0530, Rajat Khandelwal wrote:
> > Wake on connect/disconnect is only supported while runtime suspend
> > for now, which is obviously necessary. Its also not inherently
> > desired for the system to wakeup on thunderbolt hot events.
> > However, we can still make user in control of waking up the system
> > in the events of hot plug/unplug.
> > This patch adds 'wakeup' attribute under 'usb4_portX/power' sysfs
> > attribute and only enables wakes on connect/disconnect to the
> > respective port when 'wakeup' is set to 'enabled'. The attribute
> > is set to 'disabled' by default.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rajat Khandelwal <rajat.khandelwal@intel.com>
> 
> Including the issue pointed out below by my bot, Intel has a "special"
> requirement that you are not meeting here in order to send out patches
> for review on a public mailing list in a subsystem like this (i.e. one
> that I and others review patches on.)
> 
> Please meet that requirement first before sending any future kernel
> patches out.

I asked Khandelwal to send this patch upstream after we did an internal
review for it (I think I also asked him to send this out after v6.1-rc1
is released but whatever).

I think the bot noticed the v4 he sent earlier that was the same we
reviewed internally.

I was planning to pick this up after the merge window closes if there
are no objections.