On 18:32 Wed 03 Oct , Fabio Porcedda wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
> <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 17:04 Tue 02 Oct , Fabio Porcedda wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:54:55PM +0200, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
> >> >> 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(+)
> >> >> >>> ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > So maybe split this up into two different patchsets. One patchset to
> >> > add the helper function, and the use of this helper to all watchdog
> >> > divers that can use it. I think the following drivers should be
> >> > modified:
> >> >
> >> > orion_wdt.c
> >> > pnx4008_wdt.c
> >> > s3c2410_wdt.c
> >> >
> >> > In a second patchset, convert the AT91SAM9 driver over to the watchdog
> >> > core framework, and then use the helper function.
> >>
> >> I was thinking to add a more generic helper function like this:
> >>
> >> static inline void watchdog_get_dttimeout(struct device_node *node,
> >> u32 *timeout)
> >> {
> >> if (node)
> >> of_property_read_u32(node, "timeout", &wdd->timeout);
> >> }
> >>
> >> This way i can use this helper function in the at91sam9_wdt driver too.
> >> What do you think?
> > timeout_sec and this can be move at of.h level
> >
> > as this is not watchdog framework secific
>
> I can not find any property with the "_sec" suffix, you think it's
> still fine to use that suffix?
>
> You are speaking about a of_watchdog.h header with a
> of_watchdog_get_timeout function?
no a global helper not watchdog specific for timeout binding
that why I said of.h not of_watchdog.h
Best Regards,
J.
--
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
