Hi,

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:06:47PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

@@ -256,14 +303,26 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,

  	/* check interrupt */
  	if (client->irq) {
-		int ret;
-
-		ret = max17040_enable_alert_irq(chip);
-
-		if (ret) {
-			client->irq = 0;
+		if (of_device_is_compatible(client->dev.of_node,
+					    "maxim,max77836-battery")) {
+			ret = max17040_set_low_soc_alert(client,
+							 chip->low_soc_alert);
+			if (ret) {
+				dev_err(&client->dev,
+					"Failed to set low SOC alert: err %d\n",
+					ret);
+				return ret;
+			}
+
+			ret = max17040_enable_alert_irq(chip);
+			if (ret) {
+				client->irq = 0;
+				dev_warn(&client->dev,
+					 "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
+			}
+		} else {
  			dev_warn(&client->dev,
-				 "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
+				 "Device not compatible for IRQ");

Something is odd here. Either this should be part of the first
patch ("max17040: Add IRQ handler for low SOC alert"), or both
device types support the IRQ and this check should be removed.

The first patch add the IRQ without the configuration of the low SoC alert,
using the default state of charge level. This patch is working with
registers to config the low state of charge level, so it was proposed to
just try to write registers in the models compatible with that
(maxim,max77836-battery).

Maybe join the first patch to this one, and let DT binding be the first
patch on the series so we can already test compatible here, let me know what
you think about it.

Assuming the !max77836 do not have any interrupt support, you can
just add the OF check in the first patch in "if (client->irq)", so
that it reads 

if (client->irq && of_device_is_compatible(...)) {
    ...
}

-- Sebastian