RE: [PATCH 7/8] mwifiex: don't print an error if an optional DT property is missing

[Amitkumar Karwar]

> From: Julian Calaby [mailto:julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:44 AM
> To: Javier Martinez Canillas; Xinming Hu
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Amitkumar Karwar; Kalle Valo; netdev;
> linux-wireless; Nishant Sarmukadam
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] mwifiex: don't print an error if an optional DT
> property is missing
> 
> Hi Javier,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello Julian,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your feedback and reviews.
> >
> > On 06/01/2016 12:20 AM, Julian Calaby wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> >> <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> The
> >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/marvell-sd8xxx.txt DT
> >>> binding document say that the "interrupts" property in the child
> node is optional. So the property being missed shouldn't be treated as
> an error.
> >>
> >> Have you checked whether it is truly optional? I.e. nothing else
> >> breaks if this property isn't set?
> >>
> >
> > That's what the DT binding says and the IRQ is only used as a wakeup
> > source during system suspend, it is not used during runtime. And that
> > is why the
> > mwifiex_sdio_probe_of() function does not fail if the IRQ is missing.
> 
> Awesome, that's what I wanted to know.
> 
> > Now, I just got to that conclusion by reading the binding docs, the
> > message in the commits that introduced this and the driver code.
> > Xinming Hu should comment on how critical this feature is for systems
> that needs to be wakeup.
> 
> Xinming, could you review this also?
> 

Yes. IRQ is the optional parameter. System has a flexibility to not use it, but it still can configure other device tree parameters. The patch looks good.

Regards,
Amitkumar