On 28/10/2025 17:51, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 05:40:33PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 28/10/2025 17:33, Pavan Kondeti wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 05:17:44PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 28/10/2025 13:27, Pavan Kondeti wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 12:07:40PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 28/10/2025 12:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 28/10/2025 11:58, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:

quoted

On 10/28/2025 3:10 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 28/10/2025 10:35, Hrishabh Rajput via B4 Relay wrote:

quoted

+
+static int __init gunyah_wdt_init(void)
+{
+	struct arm_smccc_res res;
+	struct device_node *np;
+	int ret;
+
+	/* Check if we're running on a Qualcomm device */
+	np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "qcom,smem");

I don't think you implemented my feedback. This again is executed on
every platform, e.g. on Samsung, pointlessly.

Implement previous feedback.

Do you want us to add platform device from another driver which is 
probed only on Qualcomm devices (like socinfo from previous discussion) 
and get rid of the module init function entirely? As keeping anything in 
the module init will get it executed on all platforms.

Instead of asking the same can you read previous discussion? What is
unclear here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/3b901f9d-dbfa-4f93-a8d2-3e89bd9783c9@kernel.org/ (local)
?

quoted

With this patch version, we have tried to reduce the code execution on 
non-Qualcomm devices (also tried the alternative as mentioned in the 
cover letter). Adding platform device from another driver as described 
above would eliminate it entirely, please let us know if you want us to 
do that.

Why do I need to repeat the same as last time?

Now I see that you completely ignored previous discussion and sent THE
SAME approach.

Our intention is not to waste reviewers time at all. It is just a
misunderstanding on what your comment is about. Let me elaborate further
not to defend our approach here but to get a clarity so that we don't
end up in the same situation when v4 is posted.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/b94d8ca3-af58-4a78-9a5a-12e3db0bf75f@kernel.org/ (local) 

You mentioned here

To me socinfo feels even better. That way only, really only qcom devices
will execute this SMC.

We interpreted this comment as `avoid executing this SMC on non qcom
devices`. That is exactly what we have done in the current patch. since

So where did you use socinfo? Point me to the code.

Okay, lets go a bit deep into the socinfo part. we have used
`soc_device_match()` API to detect if the device is qcom (`family =
Snapdragon`). It works. However, when we built both `socinfo` and

socinfo driver. Read my first feedback:


"No, your hypervisor driver (which you have) should start the module via
adding platform/aux/something devices."

And then I agreed if you start it from the socinfo driver.

I'd rather not tie this to socinfo. The socinfo is an optional driver,
which is mainly used to provide debugfs entries. Watchdog is much more
important. It should not be tied to debugfs-only entry.

No problem. Choose whatever driver it is. The problem is that they did
not even implement that. They claimed they followed review but it is
100% ignored. Nothing got implemented and they send the same.

Best regards,
Krzysztof