[PATCH v6 07/13] gpio: mxc: convert pad wakeup compatible checks to hwdata flags

[Peng Fan]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 12:27:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 11, 2026 at 2:54 PM Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan at oss.nxp.com> wrote:
>>
>> mxc_gpio_generic_config() and mxc_gpio_set_pad_wakeup() call
>> of_device_is_compatible() on every invocation to determine pad wakeup
>> capability and i.MX8QM-specific behavior.  These properties are
>> invariant for the lifetime of the device.
>>
>> Extend the hwdata flags scheme introduced in the previous commit with
>> MXC_GPIO_HAS_PAD_WAKEUP and MXC_GPIO_FALL_EDGE_WAKEUP_BROKEN, adding
>> dedicated hwdata instances for imx8qm and imx8qxp (also used by imx8dxl).
>> This replaces the repeated device tree string comparisons in the
>> suspend/resume path with simple flag tests on static per-compatible
>> data.
>>
>> While at it, clean up mxc_gpio_generic_config() to use a local ret
>> variable for clarity instead of the == 0 comparison.
>
>...
>
>> +static struct mxc_gpio_hwdata imx8qm_gpio_hwdata = {
>> +       MXC_GPIO_HW_DATA_COMMON,
>> +       .flags = MXC_GPIO_FALL_EDGE_WAKEUP_BROKEN | MXC_GPIO_HAS_PAD_WAKEUP,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct mxc_gpio_hwdata imx8qxp_gpio_hwdata = {
>> +       MXC_GPIO_HW_DATA_COMMON,
>> +       .flags = MXC_GPIO_HAS_PAD_WAKEUP,
>> +};
>
>Okay, if you want to deduplicate that, make another data structure
>inside hwdata, or wrap hwdata with flags. But really, kill that
>definition.

Ah. this would need more invasive changes.

Bartosz, Frank,

what's your take on this?

Thanks
Peng

>
>--
>With Best Regards,
>Andy Shevchenko
>