From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [v3,4/4] watchdog: add Gateworks System Controller support
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 18:32:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180402163242.GC14165@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+vNU1f+SH16hs3heMA_A2KcbzbXXmJtPxi0uiL4+4tNWgYoQ@mail.gmail.com>
> The 'use case' we have been using this in for a couple years is that
> users who want to use this watchdog will enable it externally (we have
> a command in the bootloader) and if enabled the kernel driver (that
> I'm proposing here which we've been using out-of-tree) will register
> the watchdog device and the userspace watchdog process can open the
> device and start tickling it. If the watchdog is never enabled (or
> disabled via the bootloader command) the kernel driver fails to probe
> and the SoC's watchdog can be used.
Hi Tim
Is there any reason not to give the user the choice to use both
watchdogs? Normally you write drivers to expose the hardware, and then
let the users choice if they want to use it.
Andrew
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: andrew@lunn.ch (Andrew Lunn)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [v3,4/4] watchdog: add Gateworks System Controller support
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 18:32:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180402163242.GC14165@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+vNU1f+SH16hs3heMA_A2KcbzbXXmJtPxi0uiL4+4tNWgYoQ@mail.gmail.com>
> The 'use case' we have been using this in for a couple years is that
> users who want to use this watchdog will enable it externally (we have
> a command in the bootloader) and if enabled the kernel driver (that
> I'm proposing here which we've been using out-of-tree) will register
> the watchdog device and the userspace watchdog process can open the
> device and start tickling it. If the watchdog is never enabled (or
> disabled via the bootloader command) the kernel driver fails to probe
> and the SoC's watchdog can be used.
Hi Tim
Is there any reason not to give the user the choice to use both
watchdogs? Normally you write drivers to expose the hardware, and then
let the users choice if they want to use it.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-02 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-28 15:13 [PATCH v3 0/4] Add support for the Gateworks System Controller Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 15:13 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 15:14 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Gateworks System Controller bindings Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 15:14 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 15:14 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 16:24 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-28 16:24 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-28 19:17 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 19:17 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 20:23 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-28 20:23 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-28 20:53 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 20:53 ` Tim Harvey
2018-04-09 19:24 ` Rob Herring
2018-04-09 19:24 ` Rob Herring
2018-03-28 15:14 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] mfd: add Gateworks System Controller core driver Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 15:14 ` Tim Harvey
2018-04-03 15:48 ` Tim Harvey
2018-04-03 15:48 ` Tim Harvey
2018-04-03 16:47 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-04-03 16:47 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-04-03 17:29 ` Tim Harvey
2018-04-03 17:29 ` Tim Harvey
2018-04-04 13:12 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-04-04 13:12 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-04-04 14:41 ` Mark Brown
2018-04-04 14:41 ` Mark Brown
2018-03-28 15:14 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] hwmon: add Gateworks System Controller support Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 15:14 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 17:00 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-28 17:00 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-28 20:23 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 20:23 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 20:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-28 20:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-28 15:14 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] watchdog: " Tim Harvey
2018-03-28 15:14 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-30 1:07 ` [v3,4/4] " Guenter Roeck
2018-03-30 1:07 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-30 17:48 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2018-03-30 17:48 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2018-03-30 17:49 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-30 17:49 ` Tim Harvey
2018-03-30 18:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-03-30 18:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-04-02 16:07 ` Tim Harvey
2018-04-02 16:07 ` Tim Harvey
2018-04-02 16:32 ` Andrew Lunn [this message]
2018-04-02 16:32 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-04-04 16:57 ` Tim Harvey
2018-04-04 16:57 ` Tim Harvey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180402163242.GC14165@lunn.ch \
--to=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=tharvey@gateworks.com \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.