[PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Rafał Miłecki]

From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>

This helps validating DTS files.

Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
V2: Use valid $id
V4: Add "clocks" maxItems and include Rob's Reviewed-by
RESEND: Patchwork lost 1/2, marc.info lost 2/2
---
 .../bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.txt    | 19 ---------
 .../bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml   | 41 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 84122270be8f..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
-BCM7038 Watchdog timer
-
-Required properties:
-
-- compatible : should be "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"
-- reg : Specifies base physical address and size of the registers.
-
-Optional properties:
-
-- clocks: The clock running the watchdog. If no clock is found the
-	  driver will default to 27000000 Hz.
-
-Example:
-
-watchdog@f040a7e8 {
-	compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt";
-	clocks = <&upg_fixed>;
-	reg = <0xf040a7e8 0x16>;
-};
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..ed6210666ead
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: BCM7038 watchdog timer
+
+allOf:
+  - $ref: "watchdog.yaml#"
+
+maintainers:
+  - Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
+  - Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
+  - Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    const: brcm,bcm7038-wdt
+
+  reg:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+  clocks:
+    maxItems: 1
+    description: >
+      The clock running the watchdog. If no clock is found the driver will
+      default to 27000000 Hz.
+
+unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+required:
+  - reg
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    watchdog@f040a7e8 {
+      compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt";
+      reg = <0xf040a7e8 0x16>;
+      clocks = <&upg_fixed>;
+    };
-- 
2.31.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH V4 RESEND 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: add Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog block

[Rafał Miłecki]

From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>

It's a block implementing few time related functions depending on a
(SoC specific) variant. At this point there is ready binding for a
watchdog only. Work on remaining subblocks (e.g. "reg" based reboot) is
in progress.

Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
---
V2: Update $id, description, compatible, example & commit message
V3: Drop "brcm,twd" from compatible list per Rob's review
RESEND: Patchwork lost 1/2, marc.info lost 2/2
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml     | 61 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..634526f790b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog (aka TWD)
+
+maintainers:
+  - Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
+
+description: |
+  Broadcom has a Timer-Watchdog block used in multiple SoCs (e.g., BCM4908,
+  BCM63xx, BCM7038). There are few variants available (they differ slightly in
+  registers layout). This block consists of: timers, watchdog and optionally a
+  software reset handler.
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    items:
+      - enum:
+          - brcm,bcm4908-twd
+          - brcm,bcm7038-twd
+      - const: simple-mfd
+      - const: syscon
+
+  reg:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+  ranges: true
+
+  "#address-cells":
+    const: 1
+
+  "#size-cells":
+    const: 1
+
+patternProperties:
+  '^watchdog@[a-f0-9]+$':
+    $ref: /schemas/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml
+
+additionalProperties: false
+
+required:
+  - reg
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    timer-mfd@ff800400 {
+        compatible = "brcm,bcm4908-twd", "simple-mfd", "syscon";
+        reg = <0xff800400 0x4c>;
+        ranges = <0x00000000 0xff800400 0x4c>;
+
+        #address-cells = <1>;
+        #size-cells = <1>;
+
+        watchdog@28 {
+            compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt";
+            reg = <0x28 0x8>;
+        };
+    };
-- 
2.31.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: add Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog block

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 06:53:54 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> 
> It's a block implementing few time related functions depending on a
> (SoC specific) variant. At this point there is ready binding for a
> watchdog only. Work on remaining subblocks (e.g. "reg" based reboot) is
> in progress.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> ---
> V2: Update $id, description, compatible, example & commit message
> V3: Drop "brcm,twd" from compatible list per Rob's review
> RESEND: Patchwork lost 1/2, marc.info lost 2/2
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml     | 61 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml
> 

Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Rafał Miłecki]

Wim, Lee,

On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> 
> This helps validating DTS files.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog
& MFD).

Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get
it queued for Linus?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:

> Wim, Lee,
> 
> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> > 
> > This helps validating DTS files.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> > Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> 
> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog
> & MFD).
> 
> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get
> it queued for Linus?

What is the requirement for these to be merged together?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>
>>> This helps validating DTS files.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>
>> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog
>> & MFD).
>>
>> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get
>> it queued for Linus?
> 
> What is the requirement for these to be merged together?

If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make dt_binding_check"
may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.

So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
by "dt_binding_check".

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:

> On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > > On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> > > > 
> > > > This helps validating DTS files.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> > > > Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > > 
> > > I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog
> > > & MFD).
> > > 
> > > Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get
> > > it queued for Linus?
> > 
> > What is the requirement for these to be merged together?
> 
> If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make dt_binding_check"
> may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.
> 
> So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
> by "dt_binding_check".

In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.

Rob, what is your final word on this?  Is it a forced requirement for
all interconnected document changes to go in together?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Florian Fainelli]

On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> 
>> On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>
>>>>> This helps validating DTS files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog
>>>> & MFD).
>>>>
>>>> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get
>>>> it queued for Linus?
>>>
>>> What is the requirement for these to be merged together?
>>
>> If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make dt_binding_check"
>> may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.
>>
>> So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
>> by "dt_binding_check".
> 
> In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.
> 
> Rob, what is your final word on this?  Is it a forced requirement for
> all interconnected document changes to go in together?

The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02

and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should
take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically.
-- 
Florian

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Florian Fainelli wrote:

> On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > 
> >> On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >>>> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This helps validating DTS files.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >>>>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog
> >>>> & MFD).
> >>>>
> >>>> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get
> >>>> it queued for Linus?
> >>>
> >>> What is the requirement for these to be merged together?
> >>
> >> If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make dt_binding_check"
> >> may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.
> >>
> >> So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
> >> by "dt_binding_check".
> > 
> > In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.
> > 
> > Rob, what is your final word on this?  Is it a forced requirement for
> > all interconnected document changes to go in together?
> 
> The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02
> 
> and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should
> take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically.

If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Guenter Roeck]

On 12/6/21 10:55 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
>> On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This helps validating DTS files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog
>>>>>> & MFD).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get
>>>>>> it queued for Linus?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the requirement for these to be merged together?
>>>>
>>>> If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make dt_binding_check"
>>>> may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.
>>>>
>>>> So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
>>>> by "dt_binding_check".
>>>
>>> In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.
>>>
>>> Rob, what is your final word on this?  Is it a forced requirement for
>>> all interconnected document changes to go in together?
>>
>> The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02
>>
>> and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should
>> take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically.
> 
> If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch.
> 

I don't entirely see the point of that complexity for dt changes,
but whatever. Since my tree is not the official watchdog-next tree,
that means I can not take the entire series (which goes way beyond
the dt changes and also drops the bcm63xx driver). Unless I hear
otherwise, I'll drop the series from my tree for the time being
and wait for the dt changes to be sorted out.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Florian Fainelli]

On 12/6/21 11:10 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 12/6/21 10:55 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This helps validating DTS files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here:
>>>>>>> watchdog
>>>>>>> & MFD).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now
>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>> it queued for Linus?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the requirement for these to be merged together?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make
>>>>> dt_binding_check"
>>>>> may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
>>>>> by "dt_binding_check".
>>>>
>>>> In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.
>>>>
>>>> Rob, what is your final word on this?  Is it a forced requirement for
>>>> all interconnected document changes to go in together?
>>>
>>> The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02
>>>
>>>
>>> and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should
>>> take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically.
>>
>> If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch.
>>
> 
> I don't entirely see the point of that complexity for dt changes,
> but whatever. Since my tree is not the official watchdog-next tree,
> that means I can not take the entire series (which goes way beyond
> the dt changes and also drops the bcm63xx driver). Unless I hear
> otherwise, I'll drop the series from my tree for the time being
> and wait for the dt changes to be sorted out.

There is simply no rush in getting the bcm7038-wdt driver to support
4908 *just now*, so why don't you just take the bcm63xx-wdt series that
I posed, and Rafal posts an updated series that adds support for the
4908 watchdog for the 5.18 cycle?
-- 
Florian

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Guenter Roeck]

On 12/6/21 11:13 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/6/21 11:10 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 12/6/21 10:55 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This helps validating DTS files.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here:
>>>>>>>> watchdog
>>>>>>>> & MFD).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now
>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>> it queued for Linus?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the requirement for these to be merged together?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make
>>>>>> dt_binding_check"
>>>>>> may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
>>>>>> by "dt_binding_check".
>>>>>
>>>>> In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob, what is your final word on this?  Is it a forced requirement for
>>>>> all interconnected document changes to go in together?
>>>>
>>>> The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here:
>>>>
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should
>>>> take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically.
>>>
>>> If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch.
>>>
>>
>> I don't entirely see the point of that complexity for dt changes,
>> but whatever. Since my tree is not the official watchdog-next tree,
>> that means I can not take the entire series (which goes way beyond
>> the dt changes and also drops the bcm63xx driver). Unless I hear
>> otherwise, I'll drop the series from my tree for the time being
>> and wait for the dt changes to be sorted out.
> 
> There is simply no rush in getting the bcm7038-wdt driver to support
> 4908 *just now*, so why don't you just take the bcm63xx-wdt series that
> I posed, and Rafal posts an updated series that adds support for the
> 4908 watchdog for the 5.18 cycle?
> 

Your series includes the patch discussed here, and it is the first patch
of your series. The second patch in your series depends on it. Are you
telling me that I should drop those two patches from your series ?

For reference, the patches are

079a2959e68b dt-bindings: watchdog: Add BCM6345 compatible to BCM7038 binding
a5b2ebc8f6e6 dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

in my watchdog-next branch.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Florian Fainelli]

On 12/6/21 11:37 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 12/6/21 11:13 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 12/6/21 11:10 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 12/6/21 10:55 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This helps validating DTS files.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here:
>>>>>>>>> watchdog
>>>>>>>>> & MFD).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now
>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>> it queued for Linus?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the requirement for these to be merged together?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make
>>>>>>> dt_binding_check"
>>>>>>> may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings
>>>>>>> produced
>>>>>>> by "dt_binding_check".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob, what is your final word on this?  Is it a forced requirement for
>>>>>> all interconnected document changes to go in together?
>>>>>
>>>>> The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should
>>>>> take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically.
>>>>
>>>> If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't entirely see the point of that complexity for dt changes,
>>> but whatever. Since my tree is not the official watchdog-next tree,
>>> that means I can not take the entire series (which goes way beyond
>>> the dt changes and also drops the bcm63xx driver). Unless I hear
>>> otherwise, I'll drop the series from my tree for the time being
>>> and wait for the dt changes to be sorted out.
>>
>> There is simply no rush in getting the bcm7038-wdt driver to support
>> 4908 *just now*, so why don't you just take the bcm63xx-wdt series that
>> I posed, and Rafal posts an updated series that adds support for the
>> 4908 watchdog for the 5.18 cycle?
>>
> 
> Your series includes the patch discussed here, and it is the first patch
> of your series. The second patch in your series depends on it. Are you
> telling me that I should drop those two patches from your series ?

No, quite the contrary, I want you to keep the entire 7 patches that
converted the bcm7038-wdt binding to YAML and get rid of the bcm63xx-wdt
changes, the branch that you have right now is good in that regard.

I don't see why you should be creating an immutable branch for Lee and
not simply merge Rafal's "[PATCH V4 RESEND 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: add
Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog block" patch with Lee's ack directly. This is
a new file, so I don't see how it would create conflicts as long as we
don't pile up changes on top.
-- 
Florian

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:43:31AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
[ ... ]
> > 
> > Your series includes the patch discussed here, and it is the first patch
> > of your series. The second patch in your series depends on it. Are you
> > telling me that I should drop those two patches from your series ?
> 
> No, quite the contrary, I want you to keep the entire 7 patches that
> converted the bcm7038-wdt binding to YAML and get rid of the bcm63xx-wdt
> changes, the branch that you have right now is good in that regard.
> 
> I don't see why you should be creating an immutable branch for Lee and
> not simply merge Rafal's "[PATCH V4 RESEND 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: add
> Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog block" patch with Lee's ack directly. This is
> a new file, so I don't see how it would create conflicts as long as we
> don't pile up changes on top.

It sounded to me like Lee wanted an immutable branch for that, which I
can't do for watchdog. That means the options are to either drop the dt
changes, or to drop everything until after the dt issues are sorted out.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 06.12.2021 20:43, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/6/21 11:37 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 12/6/21 11:13 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> There is simply no rush in getting the bcm7038-wdt driver to support
>>> 4908 *just now*, so why don't you just take the bcm63xx-wdt series that
>>> I posed, and Rafal posts an updated series that adds support for the
>>> 4908 watchdog for the 5.18 cycle?
>>>
>>
>> Your series includes the patch discussed here, and it is the first patch
>> of your series. The second patch in your series depends on it. Are you
>> telling me that I should drop those two patches from your series ?
> 
> No, quite the contrary, I want you to keep the entire 7 patches that
> converted the bcm7038-wdt binding to YAML and get rid of the bcm63xx-wdt
> changes, the branch that you have right now is good in that regard.
> 
> I don't see why you should be creating an immutable branch for Lee and
> not simply merge Rafal's "[PATCH V4 RESEND 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: add
> Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog block" patch with Lee's ack directly. This is
> a new file, so I don't see how it would create conflicts as long as we
> don't pile up changes on top.

I'd like that pretty much as I wouldn't need to wait few extra months.

Lee: would that be OK for you to simply ack 2/2? So Guenter can pick my
patch without the whole immutable branch & PR thing?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Lee Jones]

Florian Fainelli wrote:
> I don't see why you should be creating an immutable branch for Lee and
> not simply merge Rafal's "[PATCH V4 RESEND 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: add
> Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog block" patch with Lee's ack directly. This is
> a new file, so I don't see how it would create conflicts as long as we
> don't pile up changes on top.

Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> would that be OK for you to simply ack 2/2? So Guenter can pick my
> patch without the whole immutable branch & PR thing?                   

Guenter Roeck wrote:
> I don't entirely see the point of that complexity for dt changes,    
> but whatever. Since my tree is not the official watchdog-next tree,  
> that means I can not take the entire series (which goes way beyond   
> the dt changes and also drops the bcm63xx driver). Unless I hear     
> otherwise, I'll drop the series from my tree for the time being      
> and wait for the dt changes to be sorted out.                        

If Rob wants `dt_binding_check` to run cleanly in -next, we have to
treat the DT documentation in the same manner we do for real code
when build dependencies exist between patches.  Simply sucking them up
through a single repo is just dandy until subsequent changes are
required, which unfortunately is often the case.

Being the Maintainer of MFD, which is often the centre point of
cross-subsystems patch sets, I've been bitten by this too many times.
Hence my hesitancy to 'just Ack it and be done'.

I've been pushing back on the requirement for clean `dt_binding_check`
runs in -next for a while and would much prefer to treat it the same
way we do `checkpatch.pl`, whereby a clean run is not a hard
requirement.  Instead it is used as one of many tools to check for
inconsistencies prior to submission (as possibly against patch-sets
once they are posted onto the list).  However, just as we see false
positives in `checkpatch.pl` we should see them in `dt_binding_check`
where patches have simply been applied into different trees and may
lag each other by a week or two.

> It sounded to me like Lee wanted an immutable branch for that

Not exactly, I said:

  "> Suppose we should take patch #2 via [Watchdog] as well.

   If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch."

The alternative is that I take the patch and provide an immutable
branch to you, which I am in a position to do.

Of course all of this hassle just goes away if the clean
`dt_binding_check` run on -next requirement is laxed and we can just
take our own patches without fear of wrath.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Guenter Roeck]

On 12/7/21 2:03 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
[ ... ]
>> It sounded to me like Lee wanted an immutable branch for that
> 
> Not exactly, I said:
> 
>    "> Suppose we should take patch #2 via [Watchdog] as well.
> 
>     If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch."
> 
> The alternative is that I take the patch and provide an immutable
> branch to you, which I am in a position to do.
> 

I understand, only I am not in a position to take it since my tree
isn't the official watchdog-next tree, and it doesn't show up in -next.
If Wim takes it into the official watchdog-next tree or not would be
completely up to him.

I personally don't care if the bindings check is clean in my inofficial
tree, so maybe this is a non-issue.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2021, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> On 12/7/21 2:03 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > > It sounded to me like Lee wanted an immutable branch for that
> > 
> > Not exactly, I said:
> > 
> >    "> Suppose we should take patch #2 via [Watchdog] as well.
> > 
> >     If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch."
> > 
> > The alternative is that I take the patch and provide an immutable
> > branch to you, which I am in a position to do.
> > 
> 
> I understand, only I am not in a position to take it since my tree
> isn't the official watchdog-next tree, and it doesn't show up in -next.
> If Wim takes it into the official watchdog-next tree or not would be
> completely up to him.
> 
> I personally don't care if the bindings check is clean in my inofficial
> tree, so maybe this is a non-issue.

That doesn't help, sadly.

I think the best course of action is for Wim to let me know when this
patch makes it into his tree.  I'll take the MFD one at the same time
and the two shall meet in -next.

Honestly, this is all such a faff.

Just to keep a script happy that 3 people care about.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Wim Van Sebroeck]

Hi Lee,

> On Tue, 07 Dec 2021, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> > On 12/7/21 2:03 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> > > > It sounded to me like Lee wanted an immutable branch for that
> > > 
> > > Not exactly, I said:
> > > 
> > >    "> Suppose we should take patch #2 via [Watchdog] as well.
> > > 
> > >     If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch."
> > > 
> > > The alternative is that I take the patch and provide an immutable
> > > branch to you, which I am in a position to do.
> > > 
> > 
> > I understand, only I am not in a position to take it since my tree
> > isn't the official watchdog-next tree, and it doesn't show up in -next.
> > If Wim takes it into the official watchdog-next tree or not would be
> > completely up to him.
> > 
> > I personally don't care if the bindings check is clean in my inofficial
> > tree, so maybe this is a non-issue.
> 
> That doesn't help, sadly.
> 
> I think the best course of action is for Wim to let me know when this
> patch makes it into his tree.  I'll take the MFD one at the same time
> and the two shall meet in -next.
> 
> Honestly, this is all such a faff.
> 
> Just to keep a script happy that 3 people care about.

It's going in today.

Kind regards,
Wim.


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: add Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog block

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:

> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> 
> It's a block implementing few time related functions depending on a
> (SoC specific) variant. At this point there is ready binding for a
> watchdog only. Work on remaining subblocks (e.g. "reg" based reboot) is
> in progress.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> ---
> V2: Update $id, description, compatible, example & commit message
> V3: Drop "brcm,twd" from compatible list per Rob's review
> RESEND: Patchwork lost 1/2, marc.info lost 2/2
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml     | 61 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml

Applied, thanks.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2021, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:

> Hi Lee,
> 
> > On Tue, 07 Dec 2021, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > 
> > > On 12/7/21 2:03 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > [ ... ]
> > > > > It sounded to me like Lee wanted an immutable branch for that
> > > > 
> > > > Not exactly, I said:
> > > > 
> > > >    "> Suppose we should take patch #2 via [Watchdog] as well.
> > > > 
> > > >     If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch."
> > > > 
> > > > The alternative is that I take the patch and provide an immutable
> > > > branch to you, which I am in a position to do.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I understand, only I am not in a position to take it since my tree
> > > isn't the official watchdog-next tree, and it doesn't show up in -next.
> > > If Wim takes it into the official watchdog-next tree or not would be
> > > completely up to him.
> > > 
> > > I personally don't care if the bindings check is clean in my inofficial
> > > tree, so maybe this is a non-issue.
> > 
> > That doesn't help, sadly.
> > 
> > I think the best course of action is for Wim to let me know when this
> > patch makes it into his tree.  I'll take the MFD one at the same time
> > and the two shall meet in -next.
> > 
> > Honestly, this is all such a faff.
> > 
> > Just to keep a script happy that 3 people care about.
> 
> It's going in today.

Also applied.

Thanks Wim.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel