[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56560F76.60000@simon.arlott.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:43:50 +0000
From: Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
Maxime Bizon <mbizon@...ebox.fr>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Jonas Gorski <jogo@...nwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/10] watchdog: bcm63xx_wdt: Use WATCHDOG_CORE
On 25/11/15 14:10, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 05:02 AM, Simon Arlott wrote:
>> On Wed, November 25, 2015 02:44, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> The "running" flag should no longer be needed. watchdog_active()
>>> should provide that information.
>>
>> I'm going to need to keep that because I need to know if it's running
>> in the interrupt handler, and wdd->lock is a mutex.
>>
>>>> @@ -306,17 +202,18 @@ unregister_timer:
>>>>
>>>> static int bcm63xx_wdt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> {
>>>> - if (!nowayout)
>>>> - bcm63xx_wdt_hw_stop();
>>>> + struct watchdog_device *wdd = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>>
>>>> - misc_deregister(&bcm63xx_wdt_miscdev);
>>>> bcm63xx_timer_unregister(TIMER_WDT_ID);
>>>> + watchdog_unregister_device(wdd);
>>>
>>> Shouldn't that come first, before unregistering the timer ?
>>
>> No, because wdd->dev is used in the interrupt handler. I will have to
>> move registration of the interrupt to after creating the watchdog
>> because it could currently be used before wdd->dev is set.
>>
>
> Does unregistering the timer disable the interrupt ?
No, it sets the callback for that timer to NULL so that it won't be
called.
--
Simon Arlott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists