[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d88523a8-a240-915d-9ae7-54b2277e424a@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 09:53:37 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: "Hawkins, Nick" <nick.hawkins@....com>,
"Verdun, Jean-Marie" <verdun@....com>,
"joel@....id.au" <joel@....id.au>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/8] watchdog: hpe-wdt: Introduce HPE GXP Watchdog
On 5/3/22 09:22, Hawkins, Nick wrote:
> On 5/2/22 13:40, nick.hawkins@....com wrote:
>>> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
>
>> Where are those of_ includes used ?
>
> They were not used anymore with latest changes. Thank you for pointing this out. I will remember to check in the future for each new commit to double check this.
>
>>> +#define WDT_MAX_TIMEOUT_MS 655000
>
>> Shouldn't that be 655350 ?
>
> Yes it should be. I will correct this.
>
>>> +static int gxp_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdd,
>>> + unsigned int timeout)
>>> +{
>>> + struct gxp_wdt *drvdata = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
>>> + u32 actual;
>>> +
>>> + wdd->timeout = timeout;
>>> + actual = min(timeout, wdd->max_hw_heartbeat_ms / 1000);
>>> + writew(SECS_TO_WDOG_TICKS(actual), drvdata->base + GXP_WDT_CNT_OFS);
>
>> First, the accuracy of actual is reduced to 1 second, then SECS_TO_WDOG_TICKS() multiplies the result with 100, meaning the actual accuracy is 10ms. Why not just use 10 ms ?
>
>> actual = min(timeout * 100, wdd->max_hw_heartbeat_ms / 10);
>> writew(actual, drvdata->base + GXP_WDT_CNT_OFS);
>
> I have replaced the mention code with what you recommended above.
>
>>> +
>>> +static int gxp_restart(struct watchdog_device *wdd, unsigned long action,
>>> + void *data)
>>> +{
>>> + struct gxp_wdt *drvdata = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
>>> +
>>> + writew(10, drvdata->base + GXP_WDT_CNT_OFS);
>
>> Doesn't that translate to 100 ms timeout ? Why such a large reboot delay instead of writing 1 ?
>
> This has been changed to 1.
>
>>> + gxp_wdt_enable_reload(drvdata);
>>> + mdelay(100);
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int gxp_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) {
>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> + struct gxp_wdt *drvdata;
>>> + int err;
>>> + u8 val;
>>> +
>>> + drvdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(struct gxp_wdt), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!drvdata)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + drvdata->base = (void __iomem *)dev->platform_data;
>
>> I'd personaly prefer if the address was passed as resource.
>
> Just to clarify for my understanding are you asking that in the device structure I use the "void *platform_data" to pass "struct *resource"? If I am incorrect here can you elaborate on what you would like to be done? Based on feedback in review for the device tree; the watchdog is being created as a child to the timer. Therefore the conclusion reached was there should not be a gxp-wdt listed in the device tree files. I took this implementation based on what I found in ixp4xx_wdt.c.
>
One bad deed tends to multiply.
No, I didn't ask to pass a struct resource as platform data.
That would be no different to the current code. Resources
can be added to a platform device using
platform_device_add_resources(), and the platform driver
can then use platform_get_resource() to use it. This
would make it independent of a "private" mechanism.
Thanks,
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists