Message-ID: <20160801111029.GA29647@spo001.leaseweb.nl>
Date:	Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:10:29 +0200
From:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] watchdog: introduce CONFIG_WATCHDOG_OPEN_DEADLINE

Hi All,

> On 07/27/2016 01:17 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >On 2016-07-21 02:31, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:08:52AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >>
> >>I hear you. "configure hardware" is a slippery term, though. After all,
> >>one would typically configure the initial timeout in hardware, just as
> >>any "normal" timeout. In many cases, this will actually already be the
> >>case (and should be), since the watchdog should be enabled by the
> >>ROMMON or BIOS before control is passed to the kernel. As such, the
> >>initial timeout should already be set when the driver is loaded.
> >
> >So this suggests to me that you've misunderstood how I imagine the 
> >"open-deadline" (let me keep that name for now) to work. I do certainly 
> >expect the bootloader to have configured and started the watchdog device 
> >before control is handed to the kernel, preferably with a rather large 
> >timeout, so that the watchdog doesn't reset the board before the kernel 
> >gets around to loading the appropriate driver and detecting that there's a 
> >dog to be fed. In fact, if the watchdog isn't running when the kernel 
> >starts, my patch does nothing.
> >
> 
> No, I did not misunderstand it. We just have a different perspective how to 
> fix it.
> 
> >>Overall, my conclusion is that if a devicetree property is not acceptable
> >>for some reason, we should drop the notion of supporting an initial or
> >>"open" timeout entirely, and leave it up to the BIOS/ROMMON as well as the
> >>respective watchdog driver to set an acceptable default or initial 
> >>timeout.
> >>This initial timeout can (and will) be overwritten with the desired 
> >>runtime
> >>timeout by the watchdog daemon after it opened the watchdog device.
> >>
> >>>>Devicetree could be handled in the core, with a function to set the
> >>>>initial timeout,
> >>>>or possibly even with the watchdog registration itself.
> >>>
> >>>But where in the device tree would you put this value? I'd really prefer 
> >>>not
> >>>having to modify the node representing each individual watchdog device I
> >>>might use.
> >>>
> >>The existing "timeout-sec" property is in the watchdog node as well.
> >
> >Yes, but my "timeout" is not used in any way for configuring the watchdog 
> >device nor the driver for it. Nor does an appropriate value depend on 
> >which watchdog hardware one has.
> >
> >I'm interested in, to borrow your words, "fixing the gap" between handing 
> >over control from the kernel to user-space, by making sure that the kernel 
> >only feeds the watchdog for a finite amount of time - if userspace hasn't 
> >come up and opened the watchdog device by then, the board reboots. I set a 
> >rather generous default of two minutes; it could be (and may in some cases 
> >need to be) more, but the important thing is that the kernel doesn't feed 
> >the watchdog indefinitely.
> >
> 
> I don't think we are making progress. You are absolutely opposed to 
> introducing a
> devicetree property, and I am absolutely opposed to introducing a 
> configuration option.
> The only alternatives I can see would be the old fashioned way of 
> introducing platform
> data, and/or to live with a boot parameter. Or we can wait for Wim to chime 
> in
> and share his opinion.

I would go for a device tree property. If that isn't there then we take a standard value which should imho not be bigger then 5 minutes.

Kind regards,
Wim.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists