Re: [PATCHv2 5/5] arm64: allwinner: a64: Add support for TERES-I laptop

[Icenowy Zheng]

ä 2018å6æ25æ GMT+08:00 äå4:13:01, Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> åå:
>On 6/25/2018 9:47 AM, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
>> ä 2018å6æ25æ GMT+08:00 äå3:43:51, Arend van Spriel
><arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> åå:
>>> On 6/24/2018 6:34 PM, Harald Geyer wrote:
>>>> Icenowy Zheng writes:
>>>>>> å 2018-03-15åç 16:25 +0000ïHarald Geyeråéï
>>>>>>>> +&mmc1 {
>>>>>>>> +	pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>>>> +	pinctrl-0 = <&mmc1_pins>;
>>>>>>>> +	vmmc-supply = <&reg_aldo2>;
>>>>>>>> +	vqmmc-supply = <&reg_dldo4>;
>>>>>>>> +	mmc-pwrseq = <&wifi_pwrseq>;
>>>>>>>> +	bus-width = <4>;
>>>>>>>> +	non-removable;
>>>>>>>> +	status = "okay";
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +	rtl8723bs: wifi@1 {
>>>>>>>> +		reg = <1>;
>>>>>>>> +		interrupt-parent = <&r_pio>;
>>>>>>>> +		interrupts = <0 3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; /* PL3 */
>>>>>>>> +		interrupt-names = "host-wake";
>>>>>>>> +	};
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> - This device node has no binding. The "host-wake" interrupt is
>>> part of
>>>>>>   Broadcom SDIO Wi-Fi binding, rather than a generic one.
>>>> I think the general mmc and interrupts bindings apply. And the mmc
>>> binding
>>>> clearly states that for sub-nodes a compatible string is optional.
>>>>
>>>> However I just realized that the 'interrupt-names' property is not
>>> part
>>>> of the general interrupts binding, so I guess at least this
>property
>>> should
>>>> be removed.
>>>
>>> Indeed. If the device just used the SDIO interrupt this is not
>needed.
>>> The Broadcom device can use either SDIO interrupt or a so-called
>>> out-of-band host-wake interrupt, which is what the above represents.
>>
>> RTL8....S is also capable of use OOB interrupt.
>
>Ok. Is it also in-place in this TERES-I laptop? Anyway, if RTL8...S

In fact it's a regexp here, mean Realtek SDIO WLAN NICs.

>does 
>not have a binding specification there is not much to do about it. In
>my 
>opinion it does not make sense to add it to the generic mmc/sdio
>binding 
>as this interrupt does not involve the mmc/sdio hardware hence the term
>
>OOB. There is generic wifi binding net/wireless/ieee80211.txt in which 

It seems ok. Maybe it can be used for all interfaces, not
SDIO, although I don't think there's any other interfaces
that can use OOB IRQ except SPI and SDIO, maybe UART? :-)

>this could be added. Obviously it would just be a binding and no 
>guarantee that the actual device driver supports it so the RTL driver 
>would need modification for that.

Yes. Currently OOB interrupt is not used at all.

>
>Regards,
>Arend