On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:51:15PM +0000, Eugen.Hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >>
> >> - if ((wdt->mr & AT91_WDT_WDFIEN) && irq) {
> >> + irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(dev->of_node, 0);
> >> + if (!irq) {
> >> + dev_warn(dev, "failed to get IRQ from DT\n");
> >> + wdt->need_irq = 0;
> >
> > Does it make sense to ignore that ?
>
> Hi Guenter,
>
> Can you detail what exactly is ignored ?
>
The missing interrupt.
> >> +static struct sama5d4_wdt_data sama5d4_config;
> >> +
> >> +static struct sama5d4_wdt_data sam9x60_config = {
> >> + .sam9x60_support = 1,
> >> +};
> >
> > Unless there is reason to believe that there will be other
> > configuration data, please just assign the flag value directly
> > to .data and add a variable to struct sama5d4_wdt to access it.
> > Please make that variable a bool.
>
> There will be more configuration data for future products, but not at
> this moment. Do the change or keep it this way ?
>
If not as part of this series, it is better to just assign
the flag directly. If there are changes coming at a later time
which indeed need a structure (with more than one object in it),
that structure can be added at that time.
Guenter
