[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <161179763694.76967.7406861246436700530@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 17:33:56 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>,
Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
jorge@...ndries.io, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: qcom: Remove incorrect usage of QCOM_WDT_ENABLE_IRQ
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2021-01-26 07:02:41)
> As per register documentation, QCOM_WDT_ENABLE_IRQ which is BIT(1)
> of watchdog control register is wakeup interrupt enable bit and
> not related to bark interrupt at all, BIT(0) is used for that.
> So remove incorrect usage of this bit when supporting bark irq for
> pre-timeout notification. Currently with this bit set and bark
> interrupt specified, pre-timeout notification and/or watchdog
> reset/bite does not occur.
It looks like the QCOM_WDT_ENABLE_IRQ bit is to catch a problem where a
pending irq is unmasked but the watchdog irq isn't handled in time? So
some sort of irq storm?
>
> Fixes: 36375491a439 ("watchdog: qcom: support pre-timeout when the bark irq is available")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists