Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] watchdog: simatic-ipc-wdt: add new driver for Siemens Industrial PCs

From: Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>,
	Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
	Srikanth Krishnakar <skrishnakar@gmail.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	Gerd Haeussler <gerd.haeussler.ext@siemens.com>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
	Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] watchdog: simatic-ipc-wdt: add new driver for Siemens Industrial PCs
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 14:18:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211126141814.044c27ec@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e36d8b9f-42a1-0d8c-a4cc-f497acd155fe@roeck-us.net>

Am Wed, 7 Apr 2021 05:17:12 -0700
schrieb Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>:

> On 4/7/21 1:53 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 5:56 PM Henning Schild
> > <henning.schild@siemens.com> wrote:  
> >>
> >> Am Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:15:41 +0200
> >> schrieb "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>:
> >>  
> >>> On 29.03.21 19:49, Henning Schild wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>  
> >>>> This driver adds initial support for several devices from
> >>>> Siemens. It is based on a platform driver introduced in an
> >>>> earlier commit.  
> >>>
> >>> Where does the wdt actually come from ?
> >>>
> >>> Is it in the SoC ? (which SoC exactly). SoC-builtin wdt is a
> >>> pretty usual case.
> >>>
> >>> Or some external chip ?  
> >>
> >> I guess external chip, but again we are talking about multiple
> >> machines. And the manuals i read so far do not go into that sort of
> >> detail. In fact on some of the machines you will have two
> >> watchdogs, one from the SoC and that "special" one.
> >> That has several reasons, probably not too important here. The HW
> >> guys are adding another wd not just for fun, and it would be nice
> >> to have a driver.
> >>  
> >>> The code smells a bit like two entirely different wdt's that just
> >>> have some similarities. If that's the case, I'd rather split it
> >>> into two separate drivers and let the parent driver (board file)
> >>> instantiate the correct one.  
> >>
> >> Yes, it is two. Just like for the LEDs. One version PIO-based
> >> another version gpio/p2sb/mmio based.  
> > 
> > I tend to agree with Enrico that this should be two separate
> > drivers. 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Guenter

I will ignore the wish for a split in v4. Reason is that it would cause
a lot of duplication are spreading code over many files. like i.e. a
-common.c

Internally we have that driver in fact already support a few more
machines, which could call a split at some point. Or could also upset
people of the many CONFIG_ knobs and files as we keep pushing machine
support forward in the upstream drivers.

But i would like to discuss that in patch qs coming after a merge and
not split (maybe not yet).

Also splitting wdt and having leds in one file would be inconsistent.
So when there will be a split it should be on both ends. But please
allow me to postpone that.

regards,
Henning

> >> In fact the latter should very likely be based on that gpio pinctl,
> >> whether it really needs to be a separate driver will have to be
> >> seen. There are probably pros and cons for both options.  
> > 
> >   
> 