On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Fabio Porcedda <fabio.porcedda@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:24:39PM +0200, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>>> Tested on an at91sam9260 board (evk-pro3)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fabio Porcedda <fabio.porcedda@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/watchdog/atmel-wdt.txt | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/watchdog/at91sam9_wdt.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/atmel-wdt.txt
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/atmel-wdt.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/atmel-wdt.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..65c1755
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/atmel-wdt.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
>>> +* Atmel Watchdog Timers
>>> +
>>> +** at91sam9-wdt
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +- compatible: must be "atmel,at91sam9260-wdt".
>>> +- reg: physical base address of the controller and length of memory mapped
>>> + region.
>>> +
>>> +Optional properties:
>>> +- timeout: contains the watchdog timeout in seconds.
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> + watchdog@fffffd40 {
>>> + compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-wdt";
>>> + reg = <0xfffffd40 0x10>;
>>> + timeout = <10>;
>>> + };
>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/at91sam9_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/at91sam9_wdt.c
>>> index 05e1be8..c9e6bfa 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/at91sam9_wdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/at91sam9_wdt.c
>>> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/timer.h>
>>> #include <linux/bitops.h>
>>> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>>>
>>> #include "at91sam9_wdt.h"
>>>
>>> @@ -254,6 +255,14 @@ static struct miscdevice at91wdt_miscdev = {
>>> .fops = &at91wdt_fops,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +static inline void __init at91wdt_probe_dt(struct device_node *node)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!node)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + of_property_read_u32(node, "timeout", &heartbeat);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> In patch #1 you add a function to do this, and then you don't make use
>> of it here ?
>>
>> Or am i missing something?
>
> I'm using it on the patch #2 for the orion_wdt driver.
> Do you think it's better to join the #1 and the #2 patch?
>
> Best regards
> --
> Fabio Porcedda
I'm sorry, only now i understand your question.
The at91sam9_wdt driver don't use the watchdog core framework si i
can't use that function cleanly.
The patch #1 and #2 are for introducing the same property as the
at91sam9_wdt driver.
When the at91sam9_wdt is converted to the watchdog core framework, the
driver can use finally the new function.
Best regards
--
Fabio Porcedda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
