On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 03:55:52PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 7/11/24 15:41, Frank Li wrote:
> > From: Alice Guo <alice.guo@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > i.MX93 watchdog needn't wait 2.5 clocks after RCS is done. So set
> > post_rcs_wait to false for "fsl,imx93-wdt".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alice Guo <alice.guo@xxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Ye Li <ye.li@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
> > index 904b9f1873856..3a75a6f98f8f0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
> > @@ -405,7 +405,6 @@ static const struct imx_wdt_hw_feature imx8ulp_wdt_hw = {
> > static const struct imx_wdt_hw_feature imx93_wdt_hw = {
> > .prescaler_enable = true,
> > .wdog_clock_rate = 125,
> > - .post_rcs_wait = true,
> > };
> > static const struct of_device_id imx7ulp_wdt_dt_ids[] = {
> >
> Introducing that flag in the previous patch just to remove it here doesn't
> make sense to me, sorry.
Some maintainer want create function equal patch first if just code
restructure/re-originzed. Then add additional change base on it.
Of course, I can squash to one if you like.
Frank
>
> What the two changes do together is to disable post_rcs_wait for iMX93.
> That is a single logical change, and it can and should be done in a
> single patch. If you do that by moving the flag into imx_wdt_hw_feature
> or by adding another of_device_is_compatible() is your call.
>
> Guenter
>
