[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <578FEF33.9020801@prevas.dk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 23:37:55 +0200
From: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
CC: <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] watchdog: bcm2835_wdt: set WDOG_HW_RUNNING bit when
appropriate
On 2016-07-15 15:46, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 07/15/2016 01:15 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>
>> +static bool bcm2835_wdt_is_running(struct bcm2835_wdt *wdt)
>> +{
>> + uint32_t cur;
>> +
>> + cur = readl(wdt->base + PM_RSTC);
>> +
>> + return !!(cur & PM_RSTC_WRCFG_FULL_RESET);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int bcm2835_wdt_start(struct watchdog_device *wdog)
>> {
>> struct bcm2835_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdog);
>> @@ -70,6 +79,7 @@ static int bcm2835_wdt_start(struct watchdog_device
>> *wdog)
>> PM_RSTC_WRCFG_FULL_RESET, wdt->base + PM_RSTC);
>>
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wdt->lock, flags);
>> + set_bit(WDOG_HW_RUNNING, &wdog->status);
>>
> You don't need to set this bit here unless the watchdog can not be stopped.
>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -79,6 +89,7 @@ static int bcm2835_wdt_stop(struct watchdog_device
>> *wdog)
>> struct bcm2835_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdog);
>>
>> writel_relaxed(PM_PASSWORD | PM_RSTC_RESET, wdt->base + PM_RSTC);
>> + clear_bit(WDOG_HW_RUNNING, &wdog->status);
>
> ... and since you clear the bit, it can be stopped. Both setting and
> resetting the bit
> is therefore not necessary.
Well, if the bit isn't cleared here, but it was set during probe(), the
framework will (re)start this watchdog (and keep it fed) since there's
no separate ping method. I suppose that's reasonable semantics if the
watchdog was running at boot (and I like how that ends up interacting
with my open_deadline proposal), but probably a little too subtle. This
would also change if the ->start method was broken up into separate ping
and start methods, which it seems that it could be.
If we do clear the bit here, I think it's neater to set it in start as
well, even if that doesn't really have any effect.
Rasmus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists