On 7/11/24 18:39, Frank Li wrote:
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.
In general I would ask you to do that as well, but not if patch 1/2 introduces
a change and patch 2/2 does nothing but to remove part of the change introduced
in patch 1/2.
Guenter
