linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] watchdog: max77620: add comment to clarify set

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f05f33ae-d0be-fcf2-0774-c7d0dbda3d36@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:18:34 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        Chiwoong Byun <woong.byun@...sung.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] watchdog: max77620: add comment to clarify
 set_timeout procedure

On 11/29/21 8:08 AM, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> On 29/11/21 17:04, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 04:57:06PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>>> Clarify why we need to ping the watchdog before changing the timeout by
>>> quoting the MAX77714 datasheet.
>>>
>>
>> Unless I am missing something, this adds confusion instead of clarifying
>> anything, and it is misleading. The added comment in the code makes it
>> sound like clearing the watchdog timer is only needed for MAX77614.
>> However, the code was in place for MAX77620, suggesting that it was needed
>> for that chip as well and is not MAX77614 specific.
> 
> You're right, the comment comes from the max77714-only driver, but now
> that it is in a multi-chip  driver the confusion started to exist.
> 
>> Please either drop this patch or rephrase it to clarify that it applies
>> to both chips.
> 
> What if I rephrase to:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * "If the value of TWD needs to be changed, clear the system
> 	 * watchdog timer first [...], then change the value of TWD."
> -	 * (MAX77714 datasheet)
> +	 * (MAX77714 datasheet but applies to MAX77620 too)
> 	 */
> 

Sounds good.

Guenter