[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <70b6a0d1-8cc4-280e-3e53-8c42cb43b721@osg.samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:29:01 -0400
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in
mwifiex_sdio_of()
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.
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().
> 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.
> Regards,
> Arend
>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
Powered by blists - more mailing lists