[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d3e555c2-e740-4aff-aac7-661877166399@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:50:05 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
Fabio Aiuto <fabio.aiuto@...icam.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] dt-bindings: mfd: bd96801 PMIC core
Morning Krzysztof,
Thanks again for the review/help!
On 4/14/24 00:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12/04/2024 13:21, Matti Vaittinen wrote
>> +
>> + rohm,hw-timeout-ms:
>> + description:
>> + Watchdog timeout value(s). First walue is timeout limit. Second value is
>> + optional value for 'too early' watchdog ping if window timeout mode is
>> + to be used.
>
> Standard property timeout-sec does not work for you? It should allow two
> items as well.
I don't think so. We need sub-second units. Furthermore, the timeout-sec
(if I understand it correctly) updates the "timeout policy", which tells
the expected ping-interval. This can be different from the "HW
heart-beat" which tells the HW's ping expectation. Hence the "hw-" prefix.
> Missing allOf
This just about summarizes my feelings when I try write the bindings. XD
I do feel completely lost. Hence I do really appreciate someone like you
taking the time to help me through ^^;
Enjoy the Seattle!
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists