Re: [PATCH v8 0/2] Add support for Gunyah Watchdog

[Pavan Kondeti]

Hi Bjorn,

On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 11:25:49AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Hi Bjorn and Wim,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 06:30:47PM +0530, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 12/2/2025 9:29 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 02/12/2025 12:23, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
> > > > Hi Bjorn, Guenter, and Wim,
> > > > 
> > > > Just a gentle ping on this series.
> > > 
> > > It's merge window. There was no point in pinging just before merge
> > > window and is even worse to ping now. Nothing can happen with this
> > > patchset and such pings is only noise.
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks for the guidance and apologies for the noise created during the merge
> > window.
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Since the patches have received Reviewed-by tags from Dmitry and
> > > > Guenter, I wanted to confirm the merge strategy.
> > > > 
> > > > Bjorn: Are you planning to pick the QCOM SCM changes separately through
> > > > your tree, or would you prefer the whole series go through the Watchdog
> > > > tree?
> > > > If the latter, do we need an explicit Acked-by from you for QCOM SCM patch?
> > > 
> > > Where did you document dependencies between patches and any non-obvious
> > > merging? I open cover letter and there is NOTHING. I look at patch
> > > changelog and also NOTHING.
> > > 
> > > So if you tell us nothing, why would we care to think we need to do
> > > anything special here?
> > > 
> > > You must explicitly document every dependency, both external and between
> > > patches, in the cover letter. At least cover letter, some people (e.g.
> > > mostly me) don't even read them...
> > > 
> > 
> > This is a miss from my end. The following information should have been the
> > part of the cover letter:
> > ```
> > This series spans 2 subsystems and is split as follows:
> > - Patch 1: QCOM SCM - Register Gunyah Watchdog Platform device
> > - Patch 2: Watchdog - Add Gunyah Watchdog driver
> > 
> > Dependency:
> > There is no build-time dependency between the patches, but Patch 1 is
> > required for Patch 2 to function.
> > 
> > Merge strategies:
> > - Strategy 1: Take both patches via the Watchdog tree.
> > - Strategy 2: Take Patch 1 via QCM SCM maintainter's tree, Patch 2 via
> > Watchdog tree.
> > 
> > Since the patches concern primarily with the Watchdog, I suggest we go ahead
> > with Strategy 1. If this is acceptable, I request an Acked-by from QCOM SCM
> > maintainer for Patch 1.
> > ```
> > 
> 
> Is it possible to pick it up for v6.20? As mentioned above, both patches
> don't have compile time dependency, however the QCOM SCM patch is needed
> for probing the watchdog device.
> 

Please let us know if we need to split the series into two separate
patches? or is it fine to get first patch through qcom-next and 2nd
patch through watchdog tree?

Thanks,
Pavan