On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:04:12AM +0200, Loic Poulain wrote: > Hi Guenter, Jorge, > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 00:50, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote: > > > On 9/6/19 1:30 PM, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: > > > When an IRQ is present in the dts, the probe function shall fail if > > > the interrupt can not be registered. > > > > > > > The author intended differently, and did not want registration to fail > > in this situation, following the logic that it is better to have a > > standard watchdog without pretimeout than no watchdog at all. > > > > Indeed, but I tend to agree with this change since it aligns behavior with > other > watchdog drivers and I assume there is a serious issue if request_irq fails. > I suggest adding a dev_err message in such case. > > Copying the author; I am not inclined to accept such a change without > > input from the driver author. > > > > Similar, for the deferred probe, we'll need to know from the driver author > > if this is a concern. In general it is, but there are cases where > > -EPROBE_DEFFER is never returned in practice (eg for some SoC watchdog > > drivers). > > > > The IRQ controller is the SPMI bus parent node whose driver (MFD_SPMI_PMIC) > is a direct dependency of pm8916_wdt. I'm not sure in which scenario this > could > happen. > Not sure what the action item is. Accept the patch as-is (Reviewed-by appreciated), or resubmit without the -EPROBE_DEFER check ?