> > > > @@ -659,20 +662,47 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev) > > > > if (!device_can_wakeup(&client->dev)) > > > > device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, > > > > client->flags & > > > > I2C_CLIENT_WAKE); > > > > > > I was about to ask if we couldn't combine this and the later if-blocks > > > with an if-else combination. But now I stumble over the above block in > > > general: If the device cannot cause wake ups, then we might initialize > > > it as a wakeup-device depending on client->flags?? > > > > I believe it is done so that we do not try to re-add wakeup source after > > unbinding/rebinding the device. With my patch we clearing wakeup flag on > > unbind, so it is OK, but there is still error path where we might want > > to reset the wakeup flag as well. > > I was wondering if it wants to achieve that, why does it not > unconditionally use 0 instead of the WAKE flag.
When reviewing V2, I wasn't comfortable with just guessing what the old code means. So, I did some digging and found: https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/8/10/204 Quoting the interesting paragraph from David Brownell: === Better would be to preserve any existing settings: if (!device_can_wakeup(&client->dev)) device_init_wakeup(...) That way the userspace policy setting is preserved unless the device itself gets removed ... instead of being clobbered by the simple act of (re)probing a driver. > > + device_init_wakeup(&client->dev, client->flags & > > I2C_CLIENT_WAKE); === I have to admit that I am not familiar with device wakeup handling and especially its userspace policies. Can you double check that your V2 meets the above intention? Thanks, Wolfram -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
