Re: [PATCH v3] watchdog: Add driver for Gunyah Watchdog

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/10/2025 13:27, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 12:07:40PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 28/10/2025 12:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2025 11:58, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/28/2025 3:10 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 28/10/2025 10:35, Hrishabh Rajput via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static int __init gunyah_wdt_init(void)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
>>>>>> +	struct device_node *np;
>>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* Check if we're running on a Qualcomm device */
>>>>>> +	np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "qcom,smem");
>>>>> I don't think you implemented my feedback. This again is executed on
>>>>> every platform, e.g. on Samsung, pointlessly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Implement previous feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Do you want us to add platform device from another driver which is 
>>>> probed only on Qualcomm devices (like socinfo from previous discussion) 
>>>> and get rid of the module init function entirely? As keeping anything in 
>>>> the module init will get it executed on all platforms.
>>>
>>> Instead of asking the same can you read previous discussion? What is
>>> unclear here:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/3b901f9d-dbfa-4f93-a8d2-3e89bd9783c9@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>> ?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With this patch version, we have tried to reduce the code execution on 
>>>> non-Qualcomm devices (also tried the alternative as mentioned in the 
>>>> cover letter). Adding platform device from another driver as described 
>>>> above would eliminate it entirely, please let us know if you want us to 
>>>> do that.
>>>
>>> Why do I need to repeat the same as last time?
>>
>>
>> Now I see that you completely ignored previous discussion and sent THE
>> SAME approach.
> 
> Our intention is not to waste reviewers time at all. It is just a
> misunderstanding on what your comment is about. Let me elaborate further
> not to defend our approach here but to get a clarity so that we don't
> end up in the same situation when v4 is posted.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/b94d8ca3-af58-4a78-9a5a-12e3db0bf75f@xxxxxxxxxx/ 
> 
> You mentioned here
> 
> ```
> To me socinfo feels even better. That way only, really only qcom devices
> will execute this SMC.
> ```
> 
> We interpreted this comment as `avoid executing this SMC on non qcom
> devices`. That is exactly what we have done in the current patch. since


So where did you use socinfo? Point me to the code.

Best regards,
Krzysztof