> From: Julian Calaby [mailto:julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:44 AM > To: Javier Martinez Canillas; Xinming Hu > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Amitkumar Karwar; Kalle Valo; netdev; > linux-wireless; Nishant Sarmukadam > Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] mwifiex: don't print an error if an optional DT > property is missing > > 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? > Yes. IRQ is the optional parameter. System has a flexibility to not use it, but it still can configure other device tree parameters. The patch looks good. Regards, Amitkumar ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���zW����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
