Hi Mark, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:28 PM > To: J, KEERTHY > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx; > sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx; swarren@xxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] MFD: Palmas: Add Interrupt feature > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 05:15:03AM +0000, J, KEERTHY wrote: > > > I understand your point. The IRQ is passed from device tree node. > > Say if the chip for some reason is not connected to any valid IRQ > line > > the driver might end up requesting for a wrong IRQ line. > > > So should I be validating the irq entry populated from device tree? > > Yes, you should be checking that there's actually an interrupt there - > the number will be zero if there isn't. > > > Explicitly checking on chip ID helps to avoid wrongly populated > Device > > tree data. > > Right, but on the other hand it ought to be possible to handle chips > that could but aren't configured to do interrupts and if the driver can > do that then this becomes redundant. I understood. I am now implementing this in the driver making use Of the of_parse_phandle and check if the interrupts property is Populated and only then request for irq else skip that. Hope this Approach is fine. I will send v2 in a while. Regards, Keerthy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
