Hello, [promoted Rob from Cc: to To: and adapted the subject in the hope to get some feedback] On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 09:25:30AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > On 10/7/20 9:12 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:04:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> With that in mind, your other option kind of makes sense. The only > >> question would be how to express this in devicetree. I am certainly > >> open to accepting a patch introducing such a property/functionality > >> into the watchdog core. > > > > OK, will try to come up with a patch. > > Instead of having a `provide-system-reset' property, how about providing > it unconditionally, but with a very low priority? > > This can be coupled with Guenther's suggestion of having a dynamic > way to set the priority, e.g. a `watchdog-priority' property in the device > tree that's common to all watchdogs? That's the way barebox is handling > multiple watchdogs (default value in driver overridable in DT and at runtime). OK, I'll try to put this in more verbose words: Let's introduce a generic watchdog property `watchdog-priority' that provides a u32 to order the watchdogs for systems having two or more. The value 0 means the watchdog is unusable/broken/disabled and the watchdog with the biggest value is the one supposed to be used by default. Analogous a property `watchdog-restart-priority` is used to define if a watchdog is supposed to be used to restart the machine. Again a value of 0 means "Don't use" and otherwise the highest-value watchdog is used to reset the machine. Maybe `restart-priority` is a better name that can also be used by PMICs?! > What's the DT folks opinion on that? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
