[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8dd2a196-e15b-4b1b-bebe-fcb6445d427b@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 17:45:56 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Pavan Kondeti <pavan.kondeti@....qualcomm.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: hrishabh.rajput@....qualcomm.com, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] watchdog: Add driver for Gunyah Watchdog
On 28/10/2025 17:40, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>> Every other driver which supports devicetree has an .of_match_table
>> which triggers device instantiation. If the Gunyah watchdog can for
>> some reason not use that approach, its devicetree description should
>> be fixed. Instantiating the device from its init function because its
>> devicetree description is bad or missing is just wrong. It is even more
>> wrong to try to contact the hardware or embedded controller to figure out
>> if the device is there. This can have all kinds of negative impact on other
>> hardware.
>>
> The Gunyah WDT node gets overlayed by bootloader. We see that this
We absolutely don't care what your bootloader gives as overlay. You
should have first define the bindings then add such stuff.
You cannot use any argument of your bootloader in such case. You decided
to do it ignoring or not even asking community, so you have to live now
with all the consequences of it. Including rewriting completely bootloader.
> overlay is failing w/ upstream device tree since the overlay has
> references to downstream code. Please see [1]. Hence we are trying to
> register the platform device dynamically.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists