Hi Javier, On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Julian, > > Thanks a lot for your feedback and reviews. > > On 06/01/2016 12:20 AM, Julian Calaby wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas >> <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/marvell-sd8xxx.txt DT >>> binding document say that the "interrupts" property in the child node is >>> optional. So the property being missed shouldn't be treated as an error. >> >> Have you checked whether it is truly optional? I.e. nothing else >> breaks if this property isn't set? >> > > That's what the DT binding says and the IRQ is only used as a wakeup source > during system suspend, it is not used during runtime. And that is why the > mwifiex_sdio_probe_of() function does not fail if the IRQ is missing. Awesome, that's what I wanted to know. > Now, I just got to that conclusion by reading the binding docs, the message > in the commits that introduced this and the driver code. Xinming Hu should > comment on how critical this feature is for systems that needs to be wakeup. Xinming, could you review this also? > In any case I think that the code should be consistent with what the binding > doc says and also the function does (i.e: dev_err only if returns an error). > >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Other than that, this looks sensible to me. >> >> Reviewed-by: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > Best regards, Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
