[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56B23E99.1030604@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:53:29 -0600
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Paweł Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jon Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
rruigrok@...eaurora.org, "Abdulhamid, Harb" <harba@...eaurora.org>,
Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Leo Duran <leo.duran@....com>, sudeep.holla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/5] Watchdog: ARM SBSA Generic Watchdog half timeout
panic support
Fu Wei wrote:
> sorry, are you saying : using pre-timeout instead of this half timeout?
>
> But even we have pre-timeout support, pre-timeout == timeout / 2, it
> can not be configured without touch timeout.
>
> if you want pre-timeout != timeout / 2, we have to modify WCV in the
> interrupt routine.
> (because of the explicit watchdog refresh mechanism)
>
> Could you let me know why we need pre-timeout here ??:-)
What I meant was that if we had full-blown pre-timeout support in the
watchdog layer, then you could use that to implement the
panic-on-half-timeout feature.
When pre-timeout is implemented, will you modify the interrupt handler
to use it?
>> >belong upstream. But like I said, it's just my opinion, and I won't
>> >complain if I'm outvoted.
> I think this debugging feature is the purpose of the two-stage
> watchdog, if I understand correctly
Hmmm... that make sense. I think maybe you should drop the Kconfig
option, and just have "static bool panic_enabled = false;" Also, then
do this:
if (panic_enabled) {
ret = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, sbsa_gwdt_interrupt, 0,
pdev->name, gwdt);
if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "unable to request IRQ %d\n", irq);
return ret;
}
}
That way, the interrupt handler is never registered if the command-line
parameter is not specified.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists