Hello Arend, Thanks a lot for your feedback.
On 08/18/2016 03:14 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 18-08-16 16:17, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message >> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function. > > Hmm. The caller function, ie. mwifiex_sdio_probe(), does not seem to care. > Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. It's checking the wifiex_sdio_probe_of() return value. If the IRQ request failing is not an error, then at the very least the call to disable_irq() should be avoided if request_irq() fails, and the message should be changed from dev_err() to dev_dgb() or dev_info(). > The device may still function without this wake interrupt. > That's correct, the binding says that the "interrupts" property in the child node is optional since is just a wakeup IRQ. Now the question is if should be an error if the IRQ is defined but fails to be requested. > Regards, > Arend > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America
