Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] watchdog: sama5d4_wdt: addition of sam9x60 compatible watchdog

[<Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com>]

On 07.11.2019 18:41, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:51:15PM +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
>>
>>>>    
>>>> -	if ((wdt->mr & AT91_WDT_WDFIEN) && irq) {
>>>> +	irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(dev->of_node, 0);
>>>> +	if (!irq) {
>>>> +		dev_warn(dev, "failed to get IRQ from DT\n");
>>>> +		wdt->need_irq = 0;
>>>
>>> Does it make sense to ignore that ?
>>
>> Hi Guenter,
>>
>> Can you detail what exactly is ignored ?
>>
> The missing interrupt.

Hi,

The interrupt is not mandatory for the work of the watchdog. So, if it's 
not available, we must act accordingly: just configure watchdog to reset 
the CPU.
If we have an IRQ, we can then act in the 'software-style' watchdog: 
trigger an IRQ first and try to allow the system to a safe reboot.
So , it's not ignoring, it's acting accordingly (later on, do not enable 
anything irq-related )


> 
>>>> +static struct sama5d4_wdt_data sama5d4_config;
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct sama5d4_wdt_data sam9x60_config = {
>>>> +	.sam9x60_support = 1,
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Unless there is reason to believe that there will be other
>>> configuration data, please just assign the flag value directly
>>> to .data and add a variable to struct sama5d4_wdt to access it.
>>> Please make that variable a bool.
>>
>> There will be more configuration data for future products, but not at
>> this moment. Do the change or keep it this way ?
>>
> If not as part of this series, it is better to just assign
> the flag directly. If there are changes coming at a later time
> which indeed need a structure (with more than one object in it),
> that structure can be added at that time.

Ok, I will change it in next version.

Thanks,
Eugen
> 
> Guenter
> 
>