From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: peter.griffin@linaro.org (Peter Griffin)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 07:56:41 +0000
Subject: [STLinux Kernel] [PATCH v3 5/8] watchdog: st_wdt: Add new driver
 for ST's LPC Watchdog
In-Reply-To: <20150223102526.GB14142@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd>
References: <1424260154-12868-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <1424260154-12868-6-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20150223102526.GB14142@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd>
Message-ID: <20150302075641.GA17486@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Lee,

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Peter Griffin wrote:

> Hi Lee,

I noticed you sent another version, but I didn't see a reply on this point below.

As your now doing a re-spin for Pauls comments, I thought I would send a reminder
just in case you hadn't seen it.

regards,

Peter.

> 
> <snip>
> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > +static int st_wdog_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct st_wdog *st_wdog = watchdog_get_drvdata(&st_wdog_dev);
> > +
> > +	if (watchdog_active(&st_wdog_dev))
> > +		st_wdog_stop(&st_wdog_dev);
> > +
> > +	st_wdog_setup(st_wdog, false);
> 
> I was expecting the suspend / resume callbacks would be disabling / enabling
> the IP clock.
> 
> Is there a reason why it doesn't?
> 
> From looking at the code by this point the watchdog has already been disabled so gating
> the IP seems reasonable.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Peter