Hi Marcel, On 1/4/20 10:58 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > 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? sorry i was in chrismas holidays . v5 was sent before holiday and you comment it [1] ;) , on v5 you ask me to send v6 with tag. Regards Guillaume > > Regards > > Marcel > [1] : https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bluetooth/msg82424.html
