[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e58f5851-9988-463b-824e-ad3da1137c33@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:31:12 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ian Ray <ian.ray@...ealthcare.com>
Cc: dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Input: snvs_pwrkey - support power-off-time-sec
On 14/03/2025 14:24, Ian Ray wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 01:55:47PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 14/03/2025 10:42, Ian Ray wrote:
>>>
>>> /* Get SNVS register Page */
>>> @@ -148,6 +152,24 @@ static int imx_snvs_pwrkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (pdata->irq < 0)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> + if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "power-off-time-sec", &val)) {
>>
>> And when you test your DTS against binding what do you see? I suspect
>> new warning.
>
> I checked the build logs (from a clean workarea), plus run-time dmesg,
> both with the DTS change -- and without it. There are no new warnings
> (specifically nothing mentioning snvs-pwrkey or dts or power-off-time).
>
> If an invalid value (such as "42") is chosen then the probe fails with
> -EINVAL as expected.
>
> Is there something else that I should have checked?
I don't know what your build logs process has. I meant dtbs_check
against the bindings.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists