Re: [PATCH RESEND V2 1/4] dt-bindings: fsl: scu: add watchdog binding

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Anson Huang <anson.huang@nxp.com>,
	"mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"ulf.hansson@linaro.org" <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
	"heiko@sntech.de" <heiko@sntech.de>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"bjorn.andersson@linaro.org" <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	"festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
	"jagan@amarulasolutions.com" <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>,
	Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>,
	dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
	"arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr" <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>,
	"s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	"enric.balletbo@collabora.com" <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
	"horms+renesas@verge.net.au" <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>,
	"wim@linux-watchdog.org" <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@nxp.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kernel@pengutronix.de" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	"olof@lixom.net" <olof@lixom.net>,
	"shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND V2 1/4] dt-bindings: fsl: scu: add watchdog binding
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:27:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190226222750.GA30985@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqJV9NxpOJi3Jh2Uk-TOmOL4rWwqZp3sodxsRinAHZ3m3w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:34:12PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Rob suggested that the SCU parent driver should instantiate the
> > > watchdog without explicit watchdog node. That would be possible, but it
> > > currently uses
> > > devm_of_platform_populate() to do the instantiation, and changing that
> > > would be a mess. Besides, it does sem to me that your suggested node would
> > > describe the hardware, so I am not sure I understand the reasoning.
> 
> It would just be a call to create a platform device instead. How is that a mess?
> 
> It's describing firmware. We have DT for describing h/w we've failed
> to make discoverable. We should not repeat that and just describe
> firmware in DT. Make the firmware discoverable! Though there are cases
> like firmware provided clocks where we still need something in DT, but
> this is not one of them.
> 

It requires extra code where an added DT node would accomplish the same.
It requires a mix of DT nodes for existing devices plus extra code for
newly added devices. To me that looks like a revert to old platform code,
which was replaced with DT descriptions over the last several years.

But then if that is where things are going, who am I to argue.

Guenter