Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-87330-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Feedback-ID: ic2b14614:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-204-gba07d63ee1-fm-20240229.003-gba07d63e
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a91ff3fa-5c0f-4302-9f98-6cbb254e747c@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <06bf41c9-34b8-4361-a6d9-72afeddae1b4@roeck-us.net>
References: <20230721122931.505957-1-dober6023@gmail.com>
 <a361ce91-beba-43d8-b969-285063658da5@app.fastmail.com>
 <6b0373a2-7750-4d57-8839-95c6fa30c6b8@roeck-us.net>
 <4209014c-1730-4c31-87d8-4192d68bcbc6@app.fastmail.com>
 <6615ab2a-3267-477c-ad1b-a72d5a4244e0@roeck-us.net>
 <412acdd3-6b1f-4c45-966f-c493b6fc3ddf@app.fastmail.com>
 <42a7e7e9-01b0-4d41-8af1-328de90934ef@roeck-us.net>
 <74a39cd0-cee3-49a2-a47b-92a9cf9ca008@app.fastmail.com>
 <45490a63-e46a-4eb3-a55d-2e2642588ccd@app.fastmail.com>
 <6066862c-cad6-4845-8e90-32d4572c7a23@roeck-us.net>
 <6c97c63b-af35-4919-b5a2-a867776be8e9@app.fastmail.com>
 <06bf41c9-34b8-4361-a6d9-72afeddae1b4@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:15:38 -0500
From: "Mark Pearson" <mpearson@squebb.ca>
To: "Guenter Roeck" <linux@roeck-us.net>, "David Ober" <dober6023@gmail.com>,
 wim@linux-watchdog.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
 "David Ober" <dober@lenovo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Watchdog: New module for ITE 5632 watchdog
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, at 1:47 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/29/24 10:12, Mark Pearson wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
>>> Is it necessary to treat this differently than, say,
>>> drivers/hwmon/it87.c and drivers/watchdog/it87_wdt.c ?
>>> Those work together nicely because most of the address space is
>>> separate; access through Super-IO registers
>>> is limited enough that it can be shared by using request_muxed_region()
>>> in both drivers.
>>>
>>> I'll have to look deeper into NCT6692D (and NCT6686, for that matter),
>>> to see if those require mfd drivers.
>>> I'll also need to get the datasheets for those chips and confirm that
>>> they really need different watchdog
>>> drivers to start with.
>>>
>> Ack - I'll look at those and see. Quick look at the watchdog driver and it looks possible but I need to check the details more carefully.
>> Afraid I can't share the datasheet as I don't have permission to release it. How much of a blocker is that for you?
>> 
>
> I do have the datasheet for the NCT6683 EC space. I'll need to check if
> it matches the code submitted for the NCT6686 watchdog.
>
> For NCT6692D, I asked Nuvoton if they can share the datasheet.
> Given that it is some kind of security controller chip, it may well be
> that Lenovo has an NDA with Nuvoton which prevents them from sharing
> the datasheet. We'll see.
>
> Undocumented ITE chips are simply not supportable. No matter what, someone
> will have to step up as maintainer for those chips.
>
Ack, but given the ITE chip is for our platform, are we as the submitter not on the hook for maintaining it - especially if we're making so it's only usable on the Lenovo platform? 
I'd expect myself or David to need to respond to any issues.

Looking at the it87 driver - it looks like the main thing is the request/release of the region when doing a superio_enter/exit, which we are missing and would be needed. Can definitely do that in our version, instead of the MFD, if that is preferred.

I haven't gone and looked back at the NCT devices again. Need to do that.

Thanks
Mark