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: Sat, 23 May 2015 13:40:04 -0500 Message-ID: <5560C984.10108@codeaurora.org> References: <=fu.wei@linaro.org> <1432197156-16947-7-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <555F4236.7040206@linaro.org> <4095167.UOriXdSu53@wuerfel> <556097D5.9050103@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Fu Wei Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Hanjun Guo , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Linaro ACPI Mailman List , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Wei Fu , G Gregory , Al Stone , Ashwin Chaugule , Guenter Roeck , vgandhi@codeaurora.org, wim@iguana.be, Jon Masters , Leo Duran , Jon Corbet , Mark Rutland List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Fu Wei wrote: > I wonder why you are so sure "that SOC won't have an SBSA watchdog in > it." any documentation ? > Sorry, I am not a chip design engineer, I can't see why 32-bit ARM > won't have an SBSA watchdog in it. Because there's no market for it. I'm not talking about what's theoretically possible. I'm only talking about what makes sense and what will actually happen. And I'm quite certain that we will never see an actual 32-bit ARM SOC with an SBSA watchdog device in it. Therefore, it makes no sense to complicated the code so that we can support an SOC that will never exist. So can we PLEASE stop talking about 32-bit ARM support? -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.