[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11747601-6d29-d2c8-7639-896d654280a4@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:33:48 +0100
From: guillaume La Roque <glaroque@...libre.com>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
BlueZ devel list <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
Hi Marcel,
On 1/4/20 10:58 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Guillaume,
>
>>>>>> @@ -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.
> have I missed the v5 or are still sending it?
sorry i was in chrismas holidays .
v5 was sent before holiday and you comment it [1] ;) , on v5 you ask me to send v6 with tag.
Regards
Guillaume
>
> Regards
>
> Marcel
>
[1] : https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bluetooth/msg82424.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists