Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-1645-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231213110009.v1.1.Ifd0903f1c351e84376d71dbdadbd43931197f5ea@changeid>
 <20231213110009.v1.3.I29b26a7f3b80fac0a618707446a10b6cc974fdaf@changeid>
 <20231213221959.GC2115075-robh@kernel.org> <CANg-bXB0EAd-703oOzXsFSS72Z3bfT8La_5K=W41L+B1uMz2-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231215153035.GA3996646-robh@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20231215153035.GA3996646-robh@kernel.org>
From: Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:56:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CANg-bXDfOp4e6WDx9JF5XyxjSvh-ctNsM1TTgr8N1NzfDvzpgw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] of: irq: add wake capable bit to of_irq_resource()
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Raul Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org>, 
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 8:30=E2=80=AFAM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote=
:
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:05:16PM -0700, Mark Hasemeyer wrote:
> > > If a device has multiple interrupts, but none named "wakeup" you are
> > > saying all the interrupts are wakeup capable. That's not right though=
.
> > > Only the device knows which interrupts are wakeup capable. You need:
> > >
> > > return wakeindex >=3D 0 && wakeindex =3D=3D index;
> >
> > I was assuming logic described in the DT bindings:
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/wake=
up-source.txt
> > "Also, if device is marked as a wakeup source, then all the primary
> > interrupt(s) can be used as wakeup interrupt(s)."
>
> Also not the best wording I think.
>
> Which interrupts are primary interrupts?
>
> If we can't determine which interrupt, then we should just leave it up
> to the device.
>
> Rob

+Sudeep who authored the documentation and Rob Ack'd: a68eee4c748c
("Documentation: devicetree: standardize/consolidate on "wakeup-source"
property")

I think what Rob is suggesting more closely matches what ACPI supports: whe=
re
interrupt resources are individually marked as wake capable.  The binding
documentation should be updated though.

Something like:
```
If the device is marked as a wakeup-source, interrupt wake capability depen=
ds
on the device specific "interrupt-names" property. If no interrupts are lab=
eled
as wake capable, then it is up to the device to determine which interrupts =
can
wake the system.

However if a device has a dedicated interrupt as the wakeup source, then it
needs to specify/identify it using a device specific interrupt name. In suc=
h
cases only that interrupt can be used as a wakeup interrupt.

While various legacy interrupt names exist, new devices should use "wakeup"=
 as
the canonical interrupt name.
```

Parts of the kernel (I2C, bluetooth, MMC) assume "wakeup" as the
interrupt-name. I added some wording to clarify the assumption.

Thoughts?