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. ok, then I am waiting for v6. Regards Marcel
