lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] Documentation: DT: Add optional 'timeout-sec' property for sp805
From
Date
On 23/05/18 20:29, Ray Jui wrote:
>
>
> On 5/23/2018 11:59 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:25:49AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/23/2018 3:57 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/18 19:47, Ray Jui wrote:
>>>>> Update the SP805 binding document to add optional 'timeout-sec'
>>>>> devicetree property
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/sp805-wdt.txt | 2 ++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/sp805-wdt.txt
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/sp805-wdt.txt
>>>>> index edc4f0e..f898a86 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/sp805-wdt.txt
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/sp805-wdt.txt
>>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ Required properties:
>>>>>    Optional properties:
>>>>>    - interrupts : Should specify WDT interrupt number.
>>>>> +- timeout-sec : Should specify default WDT timeout in seconds. If
>>>>> unset, the
>>>>> +                default timeout is 30 seconds
>>>>
>>>> According to the SP805 TRM, the default interval is dependent on the
>>>> rate of WDOGCLK, but would typically be a lot longer than that :/
>>>>
>>>> On a related note, anyone have any idea why we seem to have two subtly
>>>> different SP805 bindings defined?
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>>> Interesting, I did not even know that until you pointed this out (and
>>> it's
>>> funny that I found that I actually reviewed arm,sp805.txt internally in
>>> Broadcom code review).
>>>
>>> It looks like one was done by Bhupesh Sharma (sp805-wdt.txt) and the
>>> other
>>> was done by Anup Patel (arm,sp805.txt). Both were merged at the same
>>> time
>>> around March 20, 2016: 915c56bc01d6. I'd assume both were sent out at
>>> around
>>> the same time.
>>>
>>> It sounds like we should definitely remove one of them. Given that
>>> sp805-wdt.txt appears to have more detailed descriptions on the use
>>> of the
>>> clocks, should we remove arm,sp805.txt?
>>
>> Take whichever text you like, but I prefer filenames using the
>> compatible string and the correct string is 'arm,sp805' because '-wdt'
>> is redundant. You can probably safely just update all the dts files with
>> 'arm,sp805' and just remove 'arm,sp805-wdt' because it is not actually
>> used (as the ID registers are).
>
> Okay. I'll consolidate everything into arm,sp805.txt. Will also fix all
> DTS files to use "arm,sp805". The fix for actual DTS files will be in a
> different patch series.

Looking at the current in-tree DTs, for extra fun try to figure out
which binding each instance was following for the clocks. The most
common answer seems to be "neither"... :(

Robin.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-24 15:53    [W:0.075 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site