Hi Mark,
On 10/22/13 5:39 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 01:41:20AM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/21/2013 04:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:44:32PM +0100, dinguyen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Add device tree support to the DW watchdog timer.
Signed-off-by: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Jamie Iles <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jamie Iles <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-watchdog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
v2:
- Use of_match_ptr() for of_match_table
---
.../devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++++
drivers/watchdog/dw_wdt.c | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..29e150b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+Synopsys Designware Watchdog Timer
+
+Required Properties:
+
+- Compatiblity : "snps,dw-wdt"
This should presumably be:
- compatbile: should contain "snps,dw-wdt"
Hi Mark,
s/compatbile/compatible/ :-)
Indeed :)
Changed for v3.
"must be" or "should contain" ? I see both in various bindings.
Is there a preference ?
I would prefer "should contain" -- it doesn't preclude future compatible
variants.
Oops..v3 has "should be"...will change to "should contain" in v4.
+- reg : Base address of the watchdog timer register.
And the size...
+
+Example:
+
+ watchdog0: wd@ffd02000 {
+ compatible = "snps,dw-wdt";
+ reg = <0xffd02000 0x1000>;
+ interrupts = <0 171 4>;
This wasn't mentioned.
Is it necessary?
From looking into the code ...
The driver doesn't use interrupts, so I guess the answer is no. Cut-and-paste error, maybe ?
Does the device have any interrupts, even if they're unused?
Yes, the device does have an interrupt. Should I add it as an optional
property?
Is it the only interrupt?
+ clocks = <&per_base_clk>;
Similarly, is this the only clock?
The driver uses one clock, and it is mandatory.
Is this the only clock into the unit?
Does it have a name?
Yes, this is is the only clock into the unit. No, it does not have name.
Thanks,
Dinh
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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
