On 08/23/13 14:53, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 07:04:51AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:26:21PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:41:58AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/orion-wdt.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/orion-wdt.txt
index 5dc8d30..bb7f1a2 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/orion-wdt.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/orion-wdt.txt
@@ -13,7 +16,9 @@ Example:
wdt@20300 {
compatible = "marvell,orion-wdt";
- reg = <0x20300 0x28>;
+ reg = <0x20300 0x4
+ 0x20324 0x4
+ 0x20108 0x4>;
I don't like this. It reaches outside of the wdt register. I think a
more clean way to do this is to do a provider/consumer relationship as
in reset.txt. eg, here you would retain the original reg binding, and
add a reset phandle.
Mmm... I can't see how this fits a reset-controller usage.
The watchdog simply "enables" the RSTOUT bit that allows the whole SoC
to be reset when the watchdog counter expires.
The reset-controller seems to be meant to send reset signals to devices,
which is not this case.
What am I missing?
Another possible solution is to simply "enable" the RSTOUT bit for
watchdog somewhere in mach-{kirkwood,mvebu,...} at board boot-up time.
Do you think that would have any drawbacks?
IMHO, it should be fine to always enable watchdog reset -> rstout_n
assertion. The watchdog driver does it unconditionally anyway.
We can move it to arch specific code now, and reset API handler later.
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
