On 18-08-16 21:29, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Arend, > > Thanks a lot for your feedback. > > On 08/18/2016 03:14 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On 18-08-16 16:17, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message >>> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function. >> >> Hmm. The caller function, ie. mwifiex_sdio_probe(), does not seem to care. >> > > Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. It's checking the wifiex_sdio_probe_of() > return value. Ok. I looked at 4.7 sources on lxr [1]. > If the IRQ request failing is not an error, then at the very least the call > to disable_irq() should be avoided if request_irq() fails, and the message > should be changed from dev_err() to dev_dgb() or dev_info(). agree. >> The device may still function without this wake interrupt. >> > > That's correct, the binding says that the "interrupts" property in the child > node is optional since is just a wakeup IRQ. Now the question is if should > be an error if the IRQ is defined but fails to be requested. Clearly it indicates an error in the DT specification so behavior is not as expected. Personally I would indeed consider it an error, but I was just indicating that it might have done like this intentionally. Regards, Arend [1] http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c#L192 >> Regards, >> Arend >> > > Best regards, >
