On 06/04/2012 11:08 PM, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Wood Scott-B07421
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:03 AM
To: Zhao Chenhui-B35336
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
galak@kernel.crashing.org; Li Yang-R58472
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] fsl_pmc: Add API to enable device as wakeup
event source

On 06/04/2012 06:36 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:08:52PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On 05/11/2012 06:53 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote:

quoted

+int mpc85xx_pmc_set_wake(struct platform_device *pdev, bool enable)

Why does it have to be a platform_device?  Would a bare device_node

work

quoted

quoted

here?  If it's for stuff like device_may_wakeup() that could be in a
platform_device wrapper function.

It does not have to be a platform_device. I think it can be a struct

device.

Why does it even need that?  The low level mechanism for influencing
PMCDR should only need a device node, not a Linux device struct.

It does no harm to pass the device structure and makes more sense for object oriented interface design. 

It does do harm if you don't have a device structure to pass, if for
some reason you found the device by directly looking for it rather than
going through the device model.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Who is setting can_wakeup for these devices?

The device driver is responsible to set can_wakeup.

How would the device driver know how to set it?  Wouldn't this depend on
the particular SoC and low power mode?

It is based on the "fsl,magic-packet" and "fsl,wake-on-filer" device tree properties.

fsl,magic-packet was a mistake.  It is equivalent to checking the
compatible for etsec.  It does not convey any information about whether
the eTSEC is still active in a given low power mode.

How is fsl,wake-os-filer relevant to this decision?  When will it be set
but not fsl,magic-packet?

What about devices other than ethernet?  What about differences between
ordinary sleep and deep sleep?

-Scott