On 25/04/2017 at 09:17:43 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:55:28AM -0700, Moritz Fischer wrote: > > Hi Guenter, > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 04/24/2017 03:05 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote: > > > > >> I'm very unhappy with the CONFIG_DRV_RTC_DS1374_WDT way of enabling > > >> the watchdog behavior and currently I'm investigating how to make > > >> that work via DT. > > >> > > >> Watchdog maintainers, do you have an idea on how to do that in a > > >> non breaking fashion? > > >> > > > > > > Depends on what you mean with "non breaking". Just using the normal mfd > > > mechanisms, ie define an mfd cell for each client driver, should work. > > > Do you see any problems with that ? Either case, that doesn't seem > > > to be a watchdog driver problem, or am I missing something ? > > > > Well so currently watchdog behavior is selected (out of the two options alarm, > > or watchdog) by enabling the configuration option mentioned above. > > If I change this over to use a dt-based approach like dallas,ds1374-mode = <2>; > > to select the behavior in the mfd for example, won't that break people that > > relied on the old behavior? If everyone involved is ok with that, I'm happy > > to just add it to the binding. > > > > Sorry, I must be missing something. Looking into the driver code, my > understanding is that CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DS1374_WDT enables the watchdog in > addition to rtc functionality, not one or the other. Sure you would need > a different configuration option if you were to move the watchdog code into > drivers/watchdog, but other than that I don't really understand the problem. > What is the issue with, for example, > The watchdog functionality and the rtc alarm are mutually exclusive. > > The idea was to fix what's broken currently (this patchset) and then refactor. > > But if you prefer I can do all in one go instead. > > > > It just seemed a waste to me to change/fix a function which is going to > be removed in a subsequent patch (I seem to recall that there was a fix > to the ioctl function). > I'd say that it depends on whether you want to backport the fixes to the stable kernels. Backporting the full rework is probably riskier. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- 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
