From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1951607AbdDYQce (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:32:34 -0400 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]:55872 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1430299AbdDYQcZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:32:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:32:04 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Moritz Fischer , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Moritz Fischer , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, wim@iguana.be, a.zummo@towertech.it, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, alex.williams@ni.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] DS1374 Watchdog fixes Message-ID: <20170425163204.rj6on6phtbfuvcd7@piout.net> References: <1493071512-5718-1-git-send-email-mdf@kernel.org> <5f8fac22-4037-9983-436a-da8ff87d4b17@roeck-us.net> <20170425161743.GA8443@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170425161743.GA8443@roeck-us.net> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25/04/2017 at 09:17:43 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:55:28AM -0700, Moritz Fischer wrote: > > Hi Guenter, > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On 04/24/2017 03:05 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote: > > > > >> I'm very unhappy with the CONFIG_DRV_RTC_DS1374_WDT way of enabling > > >> the watchdog behavior and currently I'm investigating how to make > > >> that work via DT. > > >> > > >> Watchdog maintainers, do you have an idea on how to do that in a > > >> non breaking fashion? > > >> > > > > > > Depends on what you mean with "non breaking". Just using the normal mfd > > > mechanisms, ie define an mfd cell for each client driver, should work. > > > Do you see any problems with that ? Either case, that doesn't seem > > > to be a watchdog driver problem, or am I missing something ? > > > > Well so currently watchdog behavior is selected (out of the two options alarm, > > or watchdog) by enabling the configuration option mentioned above. > > If I change this over to use a dt-based approach like dallas,ds1374-mode = <2>; > > to select the behavior in the mfd for example, won't that break people that > > relied on the old behavior? If everyone involved is ok with that, I'm happy > > to just add it to the binding. > > > > Sorry, I must be missing something. Looking into the driver code, my > understanding is that CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DS1374_WDT enables the watchdog in > addition to rtc functionality, not one or the other. Sure you would need > a different configuration option if you were to move the watchdog code into > drivers/watchdog, but other than that I don't really understand the problem. > What is the issue with, for example, > The watchdog functionality and the rtc alarm are mutually exclusive. > > The idea was to fix what's broken currently (this patchset) and then refactor. > > But if you prefer I can do all in one go instead. > > > > It just seemed a waste to me to change/fix a function which is going to > be removed in a subsequent patch (I seem to recall that there was a fix > to the ioctl function). > I'd say that it depends on whether you want to backport the fixes to the stable kernels. Backporting the full rework is probably riskier. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Sender: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com Received: from mail.free-electrons.com (mail.free-electrons.com. [62.4.15.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 198si477120wmi.3.2017.04.25.09.32.22 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:32:04 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Moritz Fischer , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Moritz Fischer , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, wim@iguana.be, a.zummo@towertech.it, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, alex.williams@ni.com Subject: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH 0/2] DS1374 Watchdog fixes Message-ID: <20170425163204.rj6on6phtbfuvcd7@piout.net> References: <1493071512-5718-1-git-send-email-mdf@kernel.org> <5f8fac22-4037-9983-436a-da8ff87d4b17@roeck-us.net> <20170425161743.GA8443@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 In-Reply-To: <20170425161743.GA8443@roeck-us.net> Reply-To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , On 25/04/2017 at 09:17:43 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:55:28AM -0700, Moritz Fischer wrote: > > Hi Guenter, > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On 04/24/2017 03:05 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote: > > > > >> I'm very unhappy with the CONFIG_DRV_RTC_DS1374_WDT way of enabling > > >> the watchdog behavior and currently I'm investigating how to make > > >> that work via DT. > > >> > > >> Watchdog maintainers, do you have an idea on how to do that in a > > >> non breaking fashion? > > >> > > > > > > Depends on what you mean with "non breaking". Just using the normal mfd > > > mechanisms, ie define an mfd cell for each client driver, should work. > > > Do you see any problems with that ? Either case, that doesn't seem > > > to be a watchdog driver problem, or am I missing something ? > > > > Well so currently watchdog behavior is selected (out of the two options alarm, > > or watchdog) by enabling the configuration option mentioned above. > > If I change this over to use a dt-based approach like dallas,ds1374-mode = <2>; > > to select the behavior in the mfd for example, won't that break people that > > relied on the old behavior? If everyone involved is ok with that, I'm happy > > to just add it to the binding. > > > > Sorry, I must be missing something. Looking into the driver code, my > understanding is that CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DS1374_WDT enables the watchdog in > addition to rtc functionality, not one or the other. Sure you would need > a different configuration option if you were to move the watchdog code into > drivers/watchdog, but other than that I don't really understand the problem. > What is the issue with, for example, > The watchdog functionality and the rtc alarm are mutually exclusive. > > The idea was to fix what's broken currently (this patchset) and then refactor. > > But if you prefer I can do all in one go instead. > > > > It just seemed a waste to me to change/fix a function which is going to > be removed in a subsequent patch (I seem to recall that there was a fix > to the ioctl function). > I'd say that it depends on whether you want to backport the fixes to the stable kernels. Backporting the full rework is probably riskier. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.