On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 08:19:09AM +0000, Rustam Adilov wrote: > Hello, > On 2026-05-09 18:13, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 09:31:00PM +0500, Rustam Adilov wrote: > >> Add the realtek,rtl9607-wdt compatible to the Realtek Otto watchdog > >> binding. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rustam Adilov > >> --- > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml > >> index 1f5390a67cdb..ac9db40b12dc 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml > >> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ properties: > >> - realtek,rtl8390-wdt > >> - realtek,rtl9300-wdt > >> - realtek,rtl9310-wdt > >> + - realtek,rtl9607-wdt > > > > Please explain in your commit message why this new device is not > > compatible with the existing ones, particularly given the driver patch > > implies that it would be. > > pw-bot: changes-requested > > Is the fact "RTL9607C is different SoC compared to the others in the list" not > enough of a reason to include even though the all of them have an identical watchdog > timer device? But yes, i can use any other compatible just as fine. No. And to be clear, I'm not asking you to use one of the other compatibles. I'm asking you to use one of the existing ones as a fallback. > Maybe its just difference in maintainers because the RTL9310 [1] was accepted and > had the identical case to this one. > > [1]- https://lore.kernel.org/linux-watchdog/84d873d7dd375cd2392f89fa6bd9e0fe5dda4e1c.1656356377.git.sander@svanheule.net/ Probably the same feedback should have been provided there.