From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932429AbbEWTO3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 May 2015 15:14:29 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43]:33075 "EHLO mail-oi0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932289AbbEWTO0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 May 2015 15:14:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5560C984.10108@codeaurora.org> References: <=fu.wei@linaro.org> <1432197156-16947-7-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <555F4236.7040206@linaro.org> <4095167.UOriXdSu53@wuerfel> <556097D5.9050103@codeaurora.org> <5560C984.10108@codeaurora.org> Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 03:14:25 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver From: Fu Wei To: Timur Tabi Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Hanjun Guo , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Linaro ACPI Mailman List , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Wei Fu , G Gregory , Al Stone , Ashwin Chaugule , Guenter Roeck , vgandhi@codeaurora.org, wim@iguana.be, Jon Masters , Leo Duran , Jon Corbet , Mark Rutland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Timur On 24 May 2015 at 02:40, Timur Tabi wrote: > Fu Wei wrote: >> >> I wonder why you are so sure "that SOC won't have an SBSA watchdog in >> it." any documentation ? >> Sorry, I am not a chip design engineer, I can't see why 32-bit ARM >> won't have an SBSA watchdog in it. > > > Because there's no market for it. I'm not talking about what's > theoretically possible. I'm only talking about what makes sense and what > will actually happen. And I'm quite certain that we will never see an > actual 32-bit ARM SOC with an SBSA watchdog device in it. Why are you quite certain? any info you can kindly share here? > > Therefore, it makes no sense to complicated the code so that we can support > an SOC that will never exist. yes, that is a good reason! > > So can we PLEASE stop talking about 32-bit ARM support? why? we are just trying to figure out: Do we need to add ARM in "depends on" for SBSA watchdog driver? If some one suggests this, we need to figure out. > > > -- > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the > Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation. -- Best regards, Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct) Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile) Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15, One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District, Shanghai,China 200021 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fu Wei Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 03:14:25 +0800 Message-ID: References: <=fu.wei@linaro.org> <1432197156-16947-7-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <555F4236.7040206@linaro.org> <4095167.UOriXdSu53@wuerfel> <556097D5.9050103@codeaurora.org> <5560C984.10108@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5560C984.10108-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Timur Tabi Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Hanjun Guo , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Linaro ACPI Mailman List , linux-watchdog-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Wei Fu , G Gregory , Al Stone , Ashwin Chaugule , Guenter Roeck , vgandhi-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, wim-IQzOog9fTRqzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org, Jon Masters , Leo Duran , Jon Corbet , Mark Rutland List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Timur On 24 May 2015 at 02:40, Timur Tabi wrote: > Fu Wei wrote: >> >> I wonder why you are so sure "that SOC won't have an SBSA watchdog in >> it." any documentation ? >> Sorry, I am not a chip design engineer, I can't see why 32-bit ARM >> won't have an SBSA watchdog in it. > > > Because there's no market for it. I'm not talking about what's > theoretically possible. I'm only talking about what makes sense and what > will actually happen. And I'm quite certain that we will never see an > actual 32-bit ARM SOC with an SBSA watchdog device in it. Why are you quite certain? any info you can kindly share here? > > Therefore, it makes no sense to complicated the code so that we can support > an SOC that will never exist. yes, that is a good reason! > > So can we PLEASE stop talking about 32-bit ARM support? why? we are just trying to figure out: Do we need to add ARM in "depends on" for SBSA watchdog driver? If some one suggests this, we need to figure out. > > > -- > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the > Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation. -- Best regards, Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct) Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile) Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15, One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District, Shanghai,China 200021 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html