On 07.09.20 13:08, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 07.09.20 11:44, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 07.09.20 11:08, Awan, Arsalan wrote:
>>> Arsalan:
>>> I had a conversation with AMD requesting from them the WDT docs, WDT name 
>>> and upstream status. They said that their team is working on upstreaming 
>>> this amdfch_wdt driver as we speak. They will not be able to share the 
>>> docs. They suggested this name "amdfch_wdt" for this WDT. They said that 
>>> you can use the current code for the driver that AMD has shared with 
>>> Mentor, and you can merge the latest code once publicly available. The code 
>>> is expected to be available in Q4 2020.
>>
>> I doubt they will be successful with proposing a new driver, rather than
>> adding the three missing lines to the existing one. From my experience,
>> the wdt maintainer is very accurate.
>>
>
> All what is missing is a single(!) line:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sp5100_tco.c b/drivers/watchdog/sp5100_tco.c
> index 85e9664318c9..5482154fde42 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/sp5100_tco.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sp5100_tco.c
> @@ -193,7 +193,8 @@ static void tco_timer_enable(struct sp5100_tco *tco)
>               /* Set the Watchdog timer resolution to 1 sec and enable */
>               sp5100_tco_update_pm_reg8(EFCH_PM_DECODEEN3,
>                                         ~EFCH_PM_WATCHDOG_DISABLE,
> -                                       EFCH_PM_DECODEEN_SECOND_RES);
> +                                       EFCH_PM_DECODEEN_SECOND_RES |
> +                                       EFCH_PM_DECODEEN_WDT_TMREN);
>               break;
>       }
>  }
>
> [   11.957371] sp5100_tco: SP5100/SB800 TCO WatchDog Timer Driver
> [   11.957473] sp5100-tco sp5100-tco: Using 0xfed80b00 for watchdog MMIO 
> address
> [   11.957555] sp5100-tco sp5100-tco: initialized. heartbeat=60 sec 
> (nowayout=0)
> (while EBG was disabled)
>
> I'm not sure if that is unconditionally correct, also for the older
> chipsets supported by this driver, but maybe you can poke your AMD
> contacts. Will also save them "a lot" of their time. Then I can propose
> the result for upstream.
>

Already posted, you were on CC, because Guenter was the one to add efch
support upstream. He possibly knows as well and need to decide anyway.

Jan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EFI 
Boot Guard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/efibootguard-dev/8567ae8a-1126-a345-67eb-b0ed91742593%40web.de.

Reply via email to