On 2/26/21 8:35 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 26/02/2021 15.35, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:14 PM Rasmus Villemoes >> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> So I'm thinking that the proper way to handle this is to be able to >>> represent that ripple counter as a clock consumer in DT and have a >>> driver do the clk_prepare_enable(), even if that driver doesn't and >>> can't do anything else. But I'm certainly open to other suggestions. >> >> How about adding support for the optional clock to the gpio_wdt driver, >> would that work? > > I think it would _work_ (all I need is some piece of code doing the > clock_prepare_enable(), and until now we've just stashed that in some > otherwise unrelated out-of-tree driver, but we're trying to get rid of > that one), but the watchdog chip isn't really the consumer of the clock > signal, so in-so-far as DT is supposed to describe the hardware, I don't > think it's appropriate. > > OTOH, one could argue that the watchdog chip and the ripple counter > together constitute the watchdog circuit. > > Cc += watchdog maintainers. Context: I have a gpio-wdt which can > unfortunately effectively be disabled by disabling a clock output, and > that happens automatically unless the clock has a consumer in DT. But > the actual consumer is not the gpio-wdt. > Please see > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210226141411.2517368-1-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > for the original thread. > Sorry, I am missing something. If the watchdog is controlled by the clock, it is a consumer of that clock. What else does "consumer" mean ? And why not just add optional clock support to the gpio_wdt driver ? Guenter
