[PATCH v4 1/6] Documentation: DT: Consolidate SP805 binding docs

Guenter Roeck
2018-06-27T18:55:29Z

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:47:21AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
>
>
> On 6/27/2018 11:42 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:38:48AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 6/27/2018 11:33 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> >>>>Hi Guenter/Rob,
> >>>>
> >>>>Kindly let me know how you want to proceed with this?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>If I recall correctly, the patch series does not add a new problem
> >>>but merely exposes one. Is my recollection correct ? If so, maybe
> >>>we should just add a note somewhere indicating what might be wrong
> >>>and otherwise apply the series.
> >>>
> >>>Does this make sense ?
> >>
> >>Yes this makes a lot of sense to me. This patch series exposes potential
> >>problems in some SoCs that they might not be feeding the correct clock into
> >>WDT, at least based on clock names from their DT entries.
> >>
> >>This patch series does not change/affect how SP805 works on those systems.
> >>
> >>Where should the note be added?
> >>
> >
> >I would suggest to add a note into the driver where the clock is used,
> >with the details discussed here.
>
> I assume you meant adding the notes to the SP805 driver where the clock is
> used.
>
> If so, I think that makes sense. That notes deserves its own patch because
> it really has nothing to do with any of the change in this patch series.
>
> Do you want me to 1) embed that patch into this patch series and send out
> v5; or 2) leave the patch series as it is and send out a separate patch to
> add the notes to the driver?
>
2) is fine. I don't have the series here right now; if I recall correctly
all patches in the series are all marked as Reviewed-by: and/or Acked-by:.
If so, I'll apply them to my tree tonight, or at least the ones that will
go in through the watchdog tree.

Guenter