From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com (Sebastian Hesselbarth)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:57:05 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 7/7] watchdog: orion: Update device-tree binding
 documentation
In-Reply-To: <20130823125311.GH2389@localhost>
References: <1377182518-12554-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
 <1377182518-12554-8-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
 <20130823012621.GD13964@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <20130823100450.GA2389@localhost> <20130823125311.GH2389@localhost>
Message-ID: <52175C21.603@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 08/23/13 14:53, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 07:04:51AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:26:21PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:41:58AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/orion-wdt.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/orion-wdt.txt
>>>> index 5dc8d30..bb7f1a2 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/orion-wdt.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/orion-wdt.txt
>>>> @@ -13,7 +16,9 @@ Example:
>>>>
>>>>   	wdt at 20300 {
>>>>   		compatible = "marvell,orion-wdt";
>>>> -		reg = <0x20300 0x28>;
>>>> +		reg = <0x20300 0x4
>>>> +		       0x20324 0x4
>>>> +		       0x20108 0x4>;
>>>
>>> I don't like this.  It reaches outside of the wdt register.  I think a
>>> more clean way to do this is to do a provider/consumer relationship as
>>> in reset.txt.  eg, here you would retain the original reg binding, and
>>> add a reset phandle.
>>
>> Mmm... I can't see how this fits a reset-controller usage.
>>
>> The watchdog simply "enables" the RSTOUT bit that allows the whole SoC
>> to be reset when the watchdog counter expires.
>>
>> The reset-controller seems to be meant to send reset signals to devices,
>> which is not this case.
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> Another possible solution is to simply "enable" the RSTOUT bit for
> watchdog somewhere in mach-{kirkwood,mvebu,...} at board boot-up time.
>
> Do you think that would have any drawbacks?

IMHO, it should be fine to always enable watchdog reset -> rstout_n
assertion. The watchdog driver does it unconditionally anyway.
We can move it to arch specific code now, and reset API handler later.

Sebastian