linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] watchdog: imx7ulp_wdt: needn't wait 2.5 clocks after RCS is done for iMX93

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <273b53a5-c71d-423c-b27d-22c20a2eea51@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:41:13 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, Shawn Guo
 <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
 Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
 Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
 imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ye Li <ye.li@....com>,
 Alice Guo <alice.guo@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] watchdog: imx7ulp_wdt: needn't wait 2.5 clocks after
 RCS is done for iMX93

On 7/11/24 18:39, Frank Li wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 03:55:52PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 7/11/24 15:41, Frank Li wrote:
>>> From: Alice Guo <alice.guo@....com>
>>>
>>> i.MX93 watchdog needn't wait 2.5 clocks after RCS is done. So set
>>> post_rcs_wait to false for "fsl,imx93-wdt".
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alice Guo <alice.guo@....com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Ye Li <ye.li@....com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c | 1 -
>>>    1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
>>> index 904b9f1873856..3a75a6f98f8f0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
>>> @@ -405,7 +405,6 @@ static const struct imx_wdt_hw_feature imx8ulp_wdt_hw = {
>>>    static const struct imx_wdt_hw_feature imx93_wdt_hw = {
>>>    	.prescaler_enable = true,
>>>    	.wdog_clock_rate = 125,
>>> -	.post_rcs_wait = true,
>>>    };
>>>    static const struct of_device_id imx7ulp_wdt_dt_ids[] = {
>>>
>> Introducing that flag in the previous patch just to remove it here doesn't
>> make sense to me, sorry.
> 
> Some maintainer want create function equal patch first if just code
> restructure/re-originzed. Then add additional change base on it.
> 

In general I would ask you to do that as well, but not if patch 1/2 introduces
a change and patch 2/2 does nothing but to remove part of the change introduced
in patch 1/2.

Guenter