Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: pm8916_wdt: fix pretimeout registration flow
From: Loic Poulain
Date: Fri Sep 13 2019 - 06:36:42 EST
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:54, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:04:12AM +0200, Loic Poulain wrote:
> > Hi Guenter, Jorge,
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 00:50, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 9/6/19 1:30 PM, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote:
> > > > When an IRQ is present in the dts, the probe function shall fail if
> > > > the interrupt can not be registered.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The author intended differently, and did not want registration to fail
> > > in this situation, following the logic that it is better to have a
> > > standard watchdog without pretimeout than no watchdog at all.
> > >
> > Indeed, but I tend to agree with this change since it aligns behavior with
> > other
> > watchdog drivers and I assume there is a serious issue if request_irq fails.
> > I suggest adding a dev_err message in such case.
> > Copying the author; I am not inclined to accept such a change without
> > > input from the driver author.
> > >
> > > Similar, for the deferred probe, we'll need to know from the driver author
> > > if this is a concern. In general it is, but there are cases where
> > > -EPROBE_DEFFER is never returned in practice (eg for some SoC watchdog
> > > drivers).
> > >
> > The IRQ controller is the SPMI bus parent node whose driver (MFD_SPMI_PMIC)
> > is a direct dependency of pm8916_wdt. I'm not sure in which scenario this
> > could
> > happen.
> Not sure what the action item is. Accept the patch as-is (Reviewed-by
> appreciated), or resubmit without the -EPROBE_DEFER check ?
Reviewed-by: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@xxxxxxxxxx>