From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:18:05 -0500 Message-ID: <555F56BD.90305@codeaurora.org> References: <=fu.wei@linaro.org> <1432197156-16947-7-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <555F4236.7040206@linaro.org> <4095167.UOriXdSu53@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4095167.UOriXdSu53@wuerfel> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann , Hanjun Guo Cc: fu.wei@linaro.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, tekkamanninja@gmail.com, graeme.gregory@linaro.org, al.stone@linaro.org, ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org, linux@roeck-us.net, vgandhi@codeaurora.org, wim@iguana.be, jcm@redhat.com, leo.duran@amd.com, corbet@lwn.net, mark.rutland@arm.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 05/22/2015 09:55 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > While SBSA requires this watchdog device, nothing prevents SoC > manufacturers from using the same design in something that is not > a server. The first "S" in SBSA stands for "Server". I don't think it makes sense to put an SBSA watchdog device in a non-server SOC. Frankly, I don't understand why people want to make this driver work on hardware that doesn't exist. The SBSA is intended for 64-bit ARM Servers that use ACPI. Yes, there are a couple of ARM64 servers that use device tree, but those are legacy platforms. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.