[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <08ae6108-0829-3bb4-f398-7e6a58719d29@baylibre.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:07:36 +0100
From: guillaume La Roque <glaroque@...libre.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: marcel@...tmann.org, johan.hedberg@...il.com,
linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, nsaenzjulienne@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, khilman@...libre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] bluetooth: hci_bcm: enable IRQ capability from node
On 12/13/19 2:44 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 01:31:18PM +0100, guillaume La Roque wrote:
>> Hi Johan,
>>
>> On 12/13/19 12:17 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:55:21AM +0100, Guillaume La Roque wrote:
>>>> @@ -1421,6 +1422,7 @@ static int bcm_serdev_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>>>> #endif
>>>> bcmdev->serdev_hu.serdev = serdev;
>>>> serdev_device_set_drvdata(serdev, bcmdev);
>>>> + bcmdev->irq = of_irq_get(bcmdev->dev->of_node, 0);
>>> Shouldn't you be used using of_irq_get_byname()?
>> i can use it if you prefer but no other interrupt need to be defined
> Maybe not needed then. Was just thinking it may make it more clear that
> you now have two ways to specify the "host-wakeup" interrupt (and in
> your proposed implementation the interrupts-property happens to take
> priority). Perhaps that can be sorted out when you submit the binding
> update for review.
no problem i add a "host-wakeup" interrupt-name.
you are right it will be more clear with name and we know why this interrupt is needed.
> Johan
thanks
Guillaume
Powered by blists - more mailing lists