On 11/03/2017 03:37 AM, Charles Keepax wrote:

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:

quoted

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html