Hi Dmitry, On 07/20/2015 11:54 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:09:30PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com> [150719 21:53]: >>> @@ -445,6 +443,8 @@ static struct pixcir_ts_platform_data >>> *pixcir_parse_dt(struct device *dev) >>> dev_dbg(dev, "%s: x %d, y %d, gpio %d\n", __func__, >>> pdata->x_max + 1, pdata->y_max + 1, pdata->gpio_attb); >>> >>> + pdata->wakeirq = of_irq_get_byname(dev->of_node, "wakeupirq"); >>> + >>> return pdata; >> >> What about handling -EPROVE_DEFER here? At least pinctrl-single can be >> be a loadable module for the dedicated wakeirqs. > > Right. I think we should only allow -ENODATA to continue and return > error in all other cases.
-EINVAL will be returned if "interrupt-names" is not specified. I will make execption for -ENODATA & -EINVAL, and return error in all other cases? > > Also, I think "irq" suffix on name is redundant. Ok, will drop "irq" suffix: + interrupt-names = "tsc", "wakeup"; > > Thanks. > -- Regards Vignesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
