Re: [RESEND PATCHv2] watchdog: dw: Enable OF support for DW watchdog timer.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/21/2013 04:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:44:32PM +0100, dinguyen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@xxxxxxxxxx>

Add device tree support to the DW watchdog timer.

Signed-off-by: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Jamie Iles <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jamie Iles <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-watchdog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
v2:
- Use of_match_ptr() for of_match_table
---
  .../devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt        |   16 ++++++++++++++++
  drivers/watchdog/dw_wdt.c                          |    8 ++++++++
  2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..29e150b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/dw_wdt.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+Synopsys Designware Watchdog Timer
+
+Required Properties:
+
+- Compatiblity	: "snps,dw-wdt"

This should presumably be:

- compatbile: should contain "snps,dw-wdt"


Hi Mark,

s/compatbile/compatible/ :-)

"must be" or "should contain" ? I see both in various bindings.
Is there a preference ?

+- reg		: Base address of the watchdog timer register.

And the size...

+
+Example:
+
+	watchdog0: wd@ffd02000 {
+		compatible = "snps,dw-wdt";
+		reg = <0xffd02000 0x1000>;
+		interrupts = <0 171 4>;

This wasn't mentioned.

Is it necessary?


From looking into the code ...

The driver doesn't use interrupts, so I guess the answer is no. Cut-and-paste error, maybe ?

Is it the only interrupt?

+		clocks = <&per_base_clk>;

Similarly, is this the only clock?

The driver uses one clock, and it is mandatory.

Guenter

Is it necessary?

+		status = "okay";

This is unnecessary.

Thanks,
Mark.



--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux