[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <180e8f8e-f31c-fa80-ef64-24758a634abf@norik.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 08:05:35 +0100
From: Andrej Picej <andrej.picej@...ik.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@...semi.com>
Cc: Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>,
"wim@...ux-watchdog.org" <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
"linux-imx@....com" <linux-imx@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: watchdog: da9062: add watchdog
timeout mode
On 1. 12. 21 08:01, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/30/21 10:42 PM, Andrej Picej wrote:
>>
>> On 30. 11. 21 18:46, Adam Thomson wrote:
>>> On 30 November 2021 16:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Why does it need a value ? Why not just bool ?
>>>>>
>>>>> One argument might be that if the property isn't provided then the OTP
>>>>> configured value can persist without needing a FW change around
>>>>> this DT
>>>> binding.
>>>>>
>>>>> My belief though is that the majority of users would have this
>>>>> property set to 0
>>>>> by default in OTP, so a boolean would be OK I think here to enable
>>>>> watchdog
>>>>> shutdown.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, you lost me.
>>>> dlg,wdt-sd = <0>;
>>>> is the current situation, and identical to not having the property in
>>>> the first place.
>>>> dlg,wdt-sd = <1>;
>>>> is new. I don't see the difference to
>>>> dlg,wdt-sd;
>>>> vs. not having the property at all (which is, again, the current
>>>> situation).
>>>> Since it has to be backward compatible,
>>>> dlg,wdt-sd = <0>;
>>>> will always be identical to not having the property at all.
>>>> I can not find a situation where an integer would have any benefits
>>>> over a
>>>> boolean.
>>>
>>> So if you have a binary DT binding, it's either there or it isn't
>>> which implies
>>> the bit to be set to 0/1 in this case. If you have a binding which
>>> has a value,
>>> there can be 3 outcomes in this discussion:
>>>
>>> 1) Binding = 0, bit is set to 0
>>> 2) Binding = 1, bit is set to 1
>>> 3) Binding NOT present in DT, OTP default value in HW remains
>>> untouched
>>>
>>> Say a platform updates to a later kernel version, but sticks with
>>> existing DT
>>> FW (i.e. the new boolean binding isn't present in FW), then the
>>> following could
>>> happen:
>>>
>>> 1) OTP for DA9061/2 has this bit set to 1, system expectation is
>>> that watchdog
>>> triggers SHUTDOWN.
>>> 2) New driver checks existance of 'dlg,wdt-sd' but it's obviously
>>> not there so
>>> assumes the bit should be set to 0 and does so
>>> 3) When the watchdog fires, it will no longer trigger SHUTDOWN but
>>> instead
>>> POWER-DOWN due to binary handling of new boolean binding.
>>>
>>
>> This was my thinking exactly. I also first thought about boolean
>> value, but I then moved to the integer value of 0 or 1 after checking
>> the OTP default for this bit. The da9062 I'm working with has the bit
>> set to 1 by default.
>
> That needs to be be documented.
>
> Guenter
Ok, I will add a note about the default value and how it is defined by
OTP. Will submit a v3.
Thanks for review.
BR,
Andrej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists