On 12/13/19 2:44 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 01:31:18PM +0100, guillaume La Roque wrote: >> Hi Johan, >> >> On 12/13/19 12:17 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:55:21AM +0100, Guillaume La Roque wrote: >>>> @@ -1421,6 +1422,7 @@ static int bcm_serdev_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev) >>>> #endif >>>> bcmdev->serdev_hu.serdev = serdev; >>>> serdev_device_set_drvdata(serdev, bcmdev); >>>> + bcmdev->irq = of_irq_get(bcmdev->dev->of_node, 0); >>> Shouldn't you be used using of_irq_get_byname()? >> i can use it if you prefer but no other interrupt need to be defined > Maybe not needed then. Was just thinking it may make it more clear that > you now have two ways to specify the "host-wakeup" interrupt (and in > your proposed implementation the interrupts-property happens to take > priority). Perhaps that can be sorted out when you submit the binding > update for review. no problem i add a "host-wakeup" interrupt-name. you are right it will be more clear with name and we know why this interrupt is needed. > Johan thanks Guillaume
