On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 03:21:51PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
> On AM335x, ti_am335x_tsc can wake up the system from suspend, mark the
> IRQ as wakeup capable, so that device irq is not disabled during system
> suspend.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com>
> ---
>
> v2: No changes
>
> drivers/input/touchscreen/ti_am335x_tsc.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ti_am335x_tsc.c
> b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ti_am335x_tsc.c
> index f1043ae71dcc..810e05c9c4f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ti_am335x_tsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ti_am335x_tsc.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> #include <linux/of.h>
> #include <linux/of_device.h>
> #include <linux/sort.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
>
> #include <linux/mfd/ti_am335x_tscadc.h>
>
> @@ -432,6 +433,12 @@ static int titsc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> goto err_free_mem;
> }
>
> + if (device_may_wakeup(tscadc_dev->dev)) {
> + err = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(tscadc_dev->dev, ts_dev->irq);
Hmm, most of the drivers simply use enable_irq_wake()/disable_irq_wake()
in suspend/resume paths and use dev_pm_set_wake_irq() only for dedicated
and distinct wake interrupts. Why do we not follow the same pattern
here?
Thanks.
> + if (err)
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "irq wake enable failed.\n");
> + }
> +
> titsc_writel(ts_dev, REG_IRQENABLE, IRQENB_FIFO0THRES);
> titsc_writel(ts_dev, REG_IRQENABLE, IRQENB_EOS);
> err = titsc_config_wires(ts_dev);
> @@ -462,6 +469,7 @@ static int titsc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return 0;
>
> err_free_irq:
> + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(tscadc_dev->dev);
> free_irq(ts_dev->irq, ts_dev);
> err_free_mem:
> input_free_device(input_dev);
> @@ -474,6 +482,7 @@ static int titsc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct titsc *ts_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> u32 steps;
>
> + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(ts_dev->mfd_tscadc->dev);
> free_irq(ts_dev->irq, ts_dev);
>
> /* total steps followed by the enable mask */
> --
> 2.17.0
>
--
Dmitry
