Re: [PATCH v11 2/8] mfd: bd70528: Support ROHM bd70528 PMIC - core

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:

> Hello Alexandre,
> 
> On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:56 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 04/04/2019 10:24:49+0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:54:52AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Actually, now that I thik of it the right way to do this would
> > > > > have
> > > > > been the function pointer in parent data as was done in
> > > > > original patch
> > > > > set. HW-colleagues tend to re-use HW blocks, and we like to re-
> > > > > use our
> > > > > drivers. If the next PMIC from ROHM uses same RTC block but
> > > > > does not
> > > > > provide watchdog - then it is cleanest solution to fall back to
> > > > > function pointer and leave it to NULL when there is no WDT or
> > > > > when WDT
> > > > > is unused. Another option is to export dummy function - which
> > > > > is not so
> > > > > nice.
> > > > 
> > > > I think the converse is true.
> > > > 
> > > > Pointers to functions outside of a subsystem API context are
> > > > generally
> > > > horrible.  It's much nicer to call a function which can be easily
> > > > stubbed out in a header file based on a Kconfig option.  It's how
> > > > most
> > > > kernel APIs work.
> > > 
> > > I hate to admit but I see your point. This nicely solves any issues
> > > in
> > > syncronizing the startup for driver providing function pointer and
> > > for
> > > driver using it.
> > > 
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be easier to register the watchdog driver as part of the
> > RTC
> > driver?
> > 
> > As I see it, the wdt is just a glorified RTC alarm.
> 
> Do you suggest me to put all the stuff now placed in
> drivers/watchdog/bd70528_wdt.c into rtc driver? It would be doable -
> but I'd rather kept the WDT independent module so that it can be left
> out of config if WDT needs not to be used. And same with RTC. Also, re-
> use of RTC driver in HW which does not include WDT is easier when WDT
> is a separate module. To me it looks much cleaner to have the WDT as
> own module than polluting the RTC driver with config ifdefs.

I haven't looked at the code, but I agree with this in principle.

I'm a firm believer of having functionality in the most appropriate
subsystem.  IMHO, if a device can be neatly split 9/10 it should be.

> But from HW perspective you are correct. The WDT in BD70528 seems to be
> kind of RTC alarm which shuts of the PMIC if triggered.
> 
> Br,
> 	Matti Vaittinen

-- 
Lee Jones [æçæ]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog