Hi Guillaume, >>>>> @@ -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. have I missed the v5 or are still sending it? Regards Marcel
