Hi Stephen, > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:22 PM > To: J, KEERTHY > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; > ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx; sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx; > swarren@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] MFD: Palmas: Check if interrupts property > exists and then only request irq > > On 06/18/2013 04:01 AM, J Keerthy wrote: > > Check if interrupts property exists and then only request irq. > > On some boards INT line might not be connected to a valid irq line on > > the application processor. Hence keeping a check before requesting > > irq. > > When there is no interrupts property, surely i2c->irq == 0, which is an > invalid IRQ, and hence there's no need to check this before copying the > value? The intent here is NOT to request irq with 0 or Invalid IRQ. The board File will not populate the interrupts entry if the INT line is not Connected. Hence the patch checks for the 'interrupts' property. This is essential since I do not want the probe to return error Just because the i2c->irq == 0. The explicit check for the property Ensures that the board does not have the INT line connected to A valid interrupt line on the other side. > > In other words, I think this whole patch could just be: > > + palmas->irq = i2c->irq; > > right? Just this will cause a probe failure. That is not what is needed. Instead the probe should continue skipping irq part. 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
