[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29e54d8e-6b6b-49c7-b8ba-823b58c05fae@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:25:49 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
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
On 15/04/2024 08:24, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 4/15/24 08:50, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Oh, I just found out that this is an existing property. The ROHM
> BD9576/BD9573 do aleady use this. It seems I've had some discussion
> about it with Rob/Guenter when adding it. Frightening thing is that I
> didin't remember the discussion or that the property existed at all...
> Well, luckily we have lore :)
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c390476e4279d8b75de53271e9fb8948d8854528.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com/#r
>
> (I don't see the final conclusion in this discussion, it has probably
> been done on some later version of the series).
>
Sure, it's fine then.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists