From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pinctrl: Allow indicating loss of pin states during low-power Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:01:18 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20171102231551.16220-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20171102231551.16220-3-f.fainelli@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171102231551.16220-3-f.fainelli@gmail.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Fainelli , ext Tony Lindgren Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , open list , Charles Keepax , Charles Keepax , Stephen Warren , Andy Shevchenko , Al Cooper , bcm-kernel-feedback-list List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Some platforms (e.g: Broadcom STB: BMIPS_GENERIC/ARCH_BRCMSTB) will lose > their register contents when entering their lower power state. In such a > case, the pinctrl-single driver that is used will not be able to restore > the power states without telling the core about it and having > pinctrl_select_state() check for that. > > This patch adds a new optional boolean property that Device Tree can > define in order to obtain exactly that and having the core pinctrl code > take that into account. > > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli Florian, I'm really sorry for losing track of this patch set, it's important stuff and I see why systems are dependent on something like this. Tony: can you look at this from a pinctrl-single point of view? This is the intended consumer: pinctrl-single users that lose the hardware state over suspend/resume. How do you see this working with other pinctrl-single users? Yours, Linus Walleij