Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:54:53 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To:     Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@linaro.org>
Cc:     Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>,
        wim@linux-watchdog.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: pm8916_wdt: fix pretimeout registration
 flow
Message-ID: <20190911175453.GA31612@roeck-us.net>
References: <20190906203054.26725-1-jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>
 <4231aab1-c538-a14f-cea1-ceb28781c7bb@roeck-us.net>
 <CAMZdPi-P_AopbbyJEWDbnm7X8MtxTzs=MN13+UFndL2OK5VReg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMZdPi-P_AopbbyJEWDbnm7X8MtxTzs=MN13+UFndL2OK5VReg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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@roeck-us.net> 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 ?

Thanks,
Guenter