On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:14:47PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Andre, > > Added Tom to Cc. > > On 05.11.21 11:04, Andre Przywara wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 20:02:41 -0600 > > Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 at 19:22, Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Andre, > > > > > > > > On 05.11.21 00:11, Andre Przywara wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 11:37:57 +0100 > > > > > Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > On 04.11.21 04:55, Samuel Holland wrote: > > > > > > > This series hooks up the watchdog uclass to automatically register > > > > > > > watchdog devices for use with sysreset, doing a bit of minor > > > > > > > cleanup > > > > > > > along the way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The goal is for this to replace the sunxi board-level non-DM > > > > > > > reset_cpu() > > > > > > > function. I was surprised to find that the wdt_reboot driver > > > > > > > requires > > > > > > > its own undocumented device tree node, which references the > > > > > > > watchdog > > > > > > > device by phandle. This is problematic for us, because > > > > > > > sunxi-u-boot.dtsi > > > > > > > file covers 20 different SoCs with varying watchdog node phandle > > > > > > > names. > > > > > > > So it would have required adding a -u-boot.dtsi file for each > > > > > > > board. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hooking things up automatically makes sense to me; this is what > > > > > > > Linux > > > > > > > does. However, I put the code behind a new option to avoid > > > > > > > surprises for > > > > > > > other platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > > > - Move condition to wdt-uclass.c to fix build errors. > > > > > > > - Include watchdog name in error message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > > > - Extend the "if SYSRESET" block to the end of the file. > > > > > > > - Also make gpio_reboot_probe function static. > > > > > > > - Rebase on top of 492ee6b8d0e7 (now handle all watchdogs). > > > > > > > - Added patches 5-6 as an example of how the new option will > > > > > > > be used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Samuel Holland (6): > > > > > > > sysreset: Add uclass Kconfig dependency to drivers > > > > > > > sysreset: Mark driver probe functions as static > > > > > > > sysreset: watchdog: Move watchdog reference to plat data > > > > > > > watchdog: Automatically register device with sysreset > > > > > > > sunxi: Avoid duplicate reset_cpu with SYSRESET enabled > > > > > > > sunxi: Use sysreset framework for poweroff/reset > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/Kconfig | 3 +++ > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/board.c | 2 ++ > > > > > > > drivers/sysreset/Kconfig | 11 ++++++-- > > > > > > > drivers/sysreset/sysreset_gpio.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > drivers/sysreset/sysreset_resetctl.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > drivers/sysreset/sysreset_syscon.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > drivers/sysreset/sysreset_watchdog.c | 40 > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > > > > > drivers/watchdog/wdt-uclass.c | 8 ++++++ > > > > > > > include/sysreset.h | 10 +++++++ > > > > > > > 9 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Applied to u-boot-marvell > > > > > > > > > > Mmmh, why u-boot-marvell, > > > > > > > > Because I'm handling watchdog related changed since a few years and we > > > > did not create a specific subsystem repo for this and I'm usually > > > > using my "marvell" one for this.
And fwiw, there's a few other cases like this. If it's too confusing, maybe we should just roll out a few more repositories, I think it's easier to do that now than pre-gitlab? > > > > > and why did this end up already in master? > > > > > Isn't that material for the next merge window? After all this changes > > > > > quite a bit, for a lot of boards, and I did not have a closer look at > > > > > the sunxi parts yet. > > > > > > > > I was hesitating also a bit. But since this patchset is on the list in > > > > v1 since over 2 months now (2021-08-21) I thought it was "ready" for > > > > inclusion now. We are at -rc1 and I think we still have enough time to > > > > fix any resulting problems in this release cycle. > > > > Why do we have the merge window then? This is clearly not a regression or > > general fix. > > AFAIU, we are a bit less strict here in U-Boot. Patches that were posted > before the merge-window and skipped the review process (most likely > because of lack of time) are often still integrated in the early rcX > cycles. At least this is how I handle it usually. > > Tom, is my understanding here correct? Yes. We are not as strict as the kernel is about what can come in between rc1 and rc2 (and to a certain degree, post rc2). I leave things up to the discretion of the custodians. People tend of have less time to handle U-Boot changes than other stuff, so I try and be flexible in picking things up. > > > Yes I agree, that should be plenty of time for people to review it. > > > > Well, if there would be people to review the sunxi parts :-( > > I am totally fine with the generic patches (as they have been reviewed), > > but the sunxi integration is somewhat risky. > > I was explicitly deprioritising that in my queue, as it really doesn't > > change, add or fix anything, it's mere refactoring, from the user's point > > of view. > > > > > > Do you see any specific issues? > > > > Patch 6/6 changes the config for all 157 Allwinner boards, so I think that > > deserves at least some testing, *before* merging it. > > I expect that Samuel did some testing. But still, I agree that it > would be much better, if these patches - especially the Allwinner parts > got more extensive testing. > > > I will do as much testing now as possible, but I am not happy about that > > situation. > > Understood. Should we revert patch 6/6 for now? FWIW, given Samuel has been doing a number of allwinner changes, I had also assumed it was sufficiently tested, which is why I didn't raise a further concern when I saw the widespread nature of the overall changes, just figured it was a few more ready-to-go cleanups that weren't quite picked up in time. Please do speak up if you want me to revert the last part. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
