From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F02C2857C1 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 13:40:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759930817; cv=none; b=s39r1IJtGtVLAs3CCDFXDoF9SA3iuSe+5+O/dJNrkT+Xh8USErjB4pJobbKlQdaNNauWf7aZ+BnUBn55rVT7Httek5w5czSWn7NWhEfrJoC2CFOh2tjdlwMrdP+gPmOzfLjcihL9hIwaBpUV6Xdfhlx9NJHLiOHfBM5al6A+FP4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759930817; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uCd0oFT2wjNeQkZVPleL3jtPHC1bWZiaW/O0YewUWV4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nQ36X/XI9i0Lej1K1GUY25U3C5nt6c870EeRuEfw3l5SwMTI3hXyprjLQSUSpRLt8bvOxaXWWd8EEsVI2hSqQYoez3mdkzeL0G3uHUdYEHcZKJwcRH9tc+Fr8/IISnLaAOf8yphh/AHeDzsWa0oFPZFNACgVhq02Xax7ubOsQv0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=Hm56csVk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="Hm56csVk" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=KUpe Ow+dmD2bLA13SltvmvslMCpHj+UYI4ACyT5RaPM=; b=Hm56csVklsHZsSHQl/lB RwR9v8SD8WgDfzUf8smvTkTYjcLMKZkXzkEdZypFwDcK9BvVvRgRsesaBU9VOUMc BZ/p4f7pyF53thsT2OgajLr2TQx6Iz/7E7y15pOY4Trgh88O+YHSXvZzZ4eslCfb i7p7NrfX3BAnNkY3WHVdvI6HDoRj7I3ZSOnjknOKXSRZF+VP+PQGRU1rN2/nhmry RjXJ/BlsX3YfimlXhZeRcttdSi+wYaB4vzxkO+J27dIGLFVGX8JTTSNrHkFtt3mr Wz2bAUrpXXOLcXw8nvpdtuOBARUXtKduOhuAvliy5WO1BwTftBbZLR+ldwotJEkD Xg== Received: (qmail 679544 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2025 15:40:05 +0200 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with UTF8SMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 8 Oct 2025 15:40:05 +0200 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@w7Bu0qVABNa57ts1 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:40:04 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Wim Van Sebroeck , Guenter Roeck , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Geert Uytterhoeven , Magnus Damm , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] dt-bindings: watchdog: renesas,wdt: add SWDT exception for V3H Message-ID: References: <20251007152007.14508-7-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> <20251007152007.14508-12-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+B0yzqA/FZKTYHvT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --+B0yzqA/FZKTYHvT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Geert, thanks for the reviews! > > + - if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + contains: > > + const: renesas,r8a77980-swdt > > + then: > > + properties: > > + resets: false > > + else: > > + required: > > + - resets > > + >=20 > Instead, I would just make the resets property optional (i.e. not > required) for renesas,r8a77980-wdt. Oh, I like that idea! Because you are right the IP core is the same. > Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the MSSR does have a reset bit to > control SWDT on R-Car V3H. But it may be a bit hard to flip the > suspected bit on a system with remote access, as it requires modifying > firmware permissions? Well, in the docs *every* SoC except V3H has it expressed. So, I consider it officially unsupported. And I don't feel like digging out why. I'll implement your suggestion. Happy hacking, Wolfram --+B0yzqA/FZKTYHvT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAmjmabAACgkQFA3kzBSg Kbbahg/8DUKWKLaM9CN3rHFzAcGShiQpFc71yx4Ca7iYo0LTVc65ytBqk0sQlRU3 3J1NiwVbRsw9HgaJ6OorirmyCxqh9PDzm0MgHWDU9L30TAOxSyTsqdb20QcL95Ue M+zSKic/fI4PmM69zMLDgjJBcNvIO9afXlPf/E9/J4lY+VrVeKS8NPXLdT3G4Tpj 7tT7fbhFrR6ygdqDYs7lpmdrOHQRSdWY4Odq7LoVKe1X+MeaUj+ajf1gyrhEnG4K xPHvKMUV1znOvkBJ7g3GB0mIPU0IwS3YHLWx2Caw+VgeqG++Ny8f+oLnn/O6omGt BEBzcL3uuv9N6xRtb8VQyQkdIjOC/KyDbApKaGlCGhwWaQ1HFcoqQzHU45Ydp4IG VZ+tx5+FwPXkKzDss/KNRZPyh4v9GqahMX5cEVq+2+0U5Z/B+BqMUui5EyblUeOH y7Zg5Gb7K+Rkia0KAHtZ4ZfQrDxjkqEOkKBk8EklkONFcJ46lf0ILsioKh6L/5jj a9WuW8nn4+3RMYNy0Vc/xUB3JxW/PY50trOBKtedUV+3vqxtCwscCIxELwJ+odIX ES20ntrpR3iCuaH6RtT0r3x4cn3HRUftcbTr0jmiAPTd7uqjqi0h73CN95mq4jOX lIeINx4U2h8rTZTBS/fqAddXcJviWGYCVboPwGdQpOkPczJcvO8= =zm20 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+B0yzqA/FZKTYHvT--