[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b65c9c58-485d-1735-bda2-e750ee8d8a8a@norik.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:12:14 +0100
From: Andrej Picej <andrej.picej@...ik.com>
To: Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@...semi.com>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>,
"wim@...ux-watchdog.org" <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "y.bas@...tec.de" <y.bas@...tec.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] watchdog: da9062: reset board on watchdog timeout
Hi Adam,
On 26. 11. 21 14:28, Adam Thomson wrote:
>
> I'm a little concerned about forcing this change in the driver. There may be
> platforms which don't want the PMIC to perform a full reset through OTP re-read
> and if we hard code this change then that's impacting those platforms. If we
> want/need this then I think it should probably be a DT binding for da9061/2
> which then indicates the behaviour we want.
Ok, I see the impact this might have on the platforms that are relying
on the current default setting. I will start on the DT binding
implementation and submit a new patch.
>
> NRES_MODE bit also plays a part here as it controls whether or not the nRESET
> line state is changed as part of the power-down/up process. I'm assuming for
> your setup this bit is 0?
>
We leave NRES_MODE as it is, 0 by default I guess? So do you want a
separate dt binding for NRES_MODE?
BR,
Andrej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists