From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:41:03 -0800 Message-ID: <563B869F.2010004@roeck-us.net> References: <1445961999-9506-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1445961999-9506-6-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <563AE588.1080009@roeck-us.net> <563B5DF9.6080102@codeaurora.org> <563B62F7.3050307@codeaurora.org> <563B6A4B.7090400@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-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Fu Wei , Timur Tabi Cc: Linaro ACPI Mailman List , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lkml , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Jon Masters , Pratyush Anand , Will Deacon , Wim Van Sebroeck , Catalin Marinas , Wei Fu , Rob Herring , Vipul Gandhi , Dave Young List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: > Hi Timur, > > On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: >> Fu Wei wrote: >>> >>> Did you really read the "Note" above???????? OK, let me paste it again >>> and again: >>> >>> SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : >>> If a larger watch period is required then the compare value can be >>> programmed directly into the compare value register. >> >> >> Well, okay. Sorry, I should have read what you pasted more closely. But I > > Thanks for reading it again. > >> think that means during initialization, not during the WS0 timeout. > > I really don't see SBSA say "during initialization, not during the WS0 timeout", > please point it out the page number and the line number in SBSA spec. > maybe I miss it? > Thanks for your help in advance. > >> >> Anyway, I still don't like the fact that you're programming WCV in the > > "you don't like" doesn't mean "it is wrong" or "we can't do this", so > I will keep this way unless we have better idea to extend second stage > timeout. > >> interrupt handler, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it any more. > > Deal, Thanks a lot. > The problem with your driver, as I see it, is that dealing with WS0/WS1 and pretimeout makes the driver so complex that, at least for my part, I am very wary about it. The driver could long since have been accepted if it were not for that. Besides that, I really believe that any system designer using the highest permitted frequency should be willing to live with the consequences, and not force the implementation of a a complex driver. Ultimately, you'll have to decide if you want a simple driver accepted, or a complex driver hanging in the review queue forever. Thanks, Guenter