[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00c121ea-d197-93b8-2f56-bcca963f70fb@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 00:52:27 -0700
From: Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>
To: Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: sp805: set WDOG_HW_RUNNING when appropriate
On 18-05-22 04:24 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On 5/22/2018 1:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:47:18AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
>>> If the watchdog hardware is already enabled during the boot process,
>>> when the Linux watchdog driver loads, it should reset the watchdog and
>>> tell the watchdog framework. As a result, ping can be generated from
>>> the watchdog framework, until the userspace watchdog daemon takes over
>>> control
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@...adcom.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
>>> b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
>>> index 1484609..408ffbe 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
>>> /* control register masks */
>>> #define INT_ENABLE (1 << 0)
>>> #define RESET_ENABLE (1 << 1)
>>> + #define ENABLE_MASK (INT_ENABLE | RESET_ENABLE)
>>> #define WDTINTCLR 0x00C
>>> #define WDTRIS 0x010
>>> #define WDTMIS 0x014
>>> @@ -74,6 +75,18 @@ module_param(nowayout, bool, 0);
>>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout,
>>> "Set to 1 to keep watchdog running after device release");
>>> +/* returns true if wdt is running; otherwise returns false */
>>> +static bool wdt_is_running(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
>>> +{
>>> + struct sp805_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
>>> +
>>> + if ((readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK) ==
>>> + ENABLE_MASK)
>>> + return true;
>>> + else
>>> + return false;
>>
>> return !!(readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK));
>>
>
> Note ENABLE_MASK contains two bits (INT_ENABLE and RESET_ENABLE);
> therefore, a simple !!(expression) would not work? That is, the masked
> result needs to be compared against the mask again to ensure both bits
> are set, right?
Ray - your original code looks correct to me. Easier to read and less
prone to errors as shown in the attempted translation to a single statement.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray
Powered by blists - more mailing lists