he SoC-specific compatibles Hi Krzysztof,
On Wed, 2022-08-10 at 19:50 +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/08/2022 15:58, Allen-KH Cheng wrote:
> > I agree the advantage of patch is aesthetic. Since I also want to
> > send
> > another "watchdog: Convert binding to YAML" PATCH, it's better let
> > all
> > wdt compatibles in the binding match the contents of mtk_wdt_dt_ids
> > in
> > drivers/watchdog/mtk_wdt.c
> >
> > static const struct of_device_id mtk_wdt_dt_ids[] = {
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-wdt", .data = &mt2712_data },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6589-wdt" },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt7986-wdt", .data = &mt7986_data },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-wdt", .data = &mt8183_data },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8186-wdt", .data = &mt8186_data },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8192-wdt", .data = &mt8192_data },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-wdt", .data = &mt8195_data },
> > { /* sentinel */ }
> > };
> >
> > We have "mediatek,mt8186-wdt" "mediatek,mt8195-wdt" and
> > "mediatek,mt7986-wdt" now and they have their DT data for the reset
> > control.
> >
> > It's weird and unuseful to add "mediatek,mt6589-wdt" as fallback.
> >
> >
> > Please kindly let me know if I missed anything
>
> How the driver arranges it should not be a reason to use or not to
> use
> specific fallback. Although Rob acked it, but I still think you did
> not
> provide valid reason for the change.
>
> Valid reason is usually the actual hardware (so they are actually not
> compatible with mt6589), not exactly how once someone did it in the
> driver.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Thank you for your detailed and clear explanation.
"mediatek,mt6589-wdt" provides the mtk watchdog support and the SoC-
specific compatibles is for reset controls to standard wdt.
"mediatek,mt6589-wdt" is compatible with mt8186, mt8195 and mt7986 and
just not support the reset controls.
Based on the discussion of email thread, please drop my series.
Thanks to everyone for your comments.
Best regards,
Allen
