Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: watchdog: realtek,otto-wdt: add compatible for RTL9607C

[Rustam Adilov]

On 2026-05-11 15:52, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 08:19:09AM +0000, Rustam Adilov wrote:
>> Hello,
>> On 2026-05-09 18:13, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 09:31:00PM +0500, Rustam Adilov wrote:
>> >> Add the realtek,rtl9607-wdt compatible to the Realtek Otto watchdog
>> >> binding.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Rustam Adilov <adilov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml | 1 +
>> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml
>> >> index 1f5390a67cdb..ac9db40b12dc 100644
>> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml
>> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/realtek,otto-wdt.yaml
>> >> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ properties:
>> >>        - realtek,rtl8390-wdt
>> >>        - realtek,rtl9300-wdt
>> >>        - realtek,rtl9310-wdt
>> >> +      - realtek,rtl9607-wdt
>> >
>> > Please explain in your commit message why this new device is not
>> > compatible with the existing ones, particularly given the driver patch
>> > implies that it would be.
>> > pw-bot: changes-requested
>> 
>> Is the fact "RTL9607C is different SoC compared to the others in the list" not
>> enough of a reason to include even though the all of them have an identical watchdog
>> timer device? But yes, i can use any other compatible just as fine.
> 
> No. And to be clear, I'm not asking you to use one of the other
> compatibles. I'm asking you to use one of the existing ones as a
> fallback.

Okay, I see. Thanks for explanation. Sander is currently going over adding a proper
fallback compatible. In the meantime, i can drop the patches 2 and 3 for v2 of this
patch series as they are no longer necessary.