Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> writes:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Given the addition of an of_device_id table and some (implicit) property
> parsing, this requires a device tree binding document.
Yes, you're right. I'll prepare that.
>> + ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, cot->irq, lubbock_irq_handler, 0,
>> + dev_name(&pdev->dev), cot);
>> + if (ret == -ENOSYS)
>> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Couldn't request GPIO : ret = %d\n", ret);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> + irq_set_irq_type(cot->irq, IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING);
>
> Shouldn't that be in the interrupt-specifier when using DT?
Maybe. But what about the platform data case ? I think I wanted to express the
multiple-NOR gate binding all incoming level interrupt into the output cot->irq
interrupt line going to GPIO0.
Do you have an idea for the platform data case ?
>> +static const struct of_device_id lubbock_id_table[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "marvell,lubbock_io", },
> When PXA25x it was Intel, not Marvell. So I think the vendor prefix
> should be "intel".
>
> Also s/_/-/ in property names and compatible strings please.
Ok for v3.
Thanks for the review.
--
Robert
--
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/
