linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] watchdog: imx7ulp_wdt: move post_rcs_wait into struct imx_wdt_hw

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ca762afb-07e1-4b3e-9ab7-5bd5c128d7b7@roeck-us.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:51:13 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>,
 Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: alice.guo@....com, festevam@...il.com, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
 kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
 s.hauer@...gutronix.de, shawnguo@...nel.org, wim@...ux-watchdog.org,
 ye.li@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] watchdog: imx7ulp_wdt: move post_rcs_wait into
 struct imx_wdt_hw_feature

On 7/29/24 14:16, Frank Li wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:12:13PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> Le 29/07/2024 à 22:06, Frank Li a écrit :
>>> Move post_rcs_wait into struct imx_wdt_hw_feature to simple code logic for
>>> difference compatible string.
>>>
>>> i.MX93 watchdog needn't wait 2.5 clocks after RCS is done. So needn't set
>>> post_rcs_wait.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux-0h96xk9xTtrk1uMJSBkQmQ@...lic.gmane.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alice Guo <alice.guo-3arQi8VN3Tc@...lic.gmane.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Ye Li <ye.li-3arQi8VN3Tc@...lic.gmane.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li-3arQi8VN3Tc@...lic.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>>> Chagne from v3 to v4:
>>> - Go back to v2 according to Guenter's feedback
>>> Change from v2 to v3:
>>> - Set post_rcs_wait to false explicitly to maintain code consistency
>>> - Add Guenter review tag.
>>> Change from v1 to v2:
>>> - Combine to one patch
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c | 21 +++++++++------------
>>>    1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
>>> index 94914a22daff7..3a75a6f98f8f0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
>>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout, "Watchdog cannot be stopped once started (default="
>>>    struct imx_wdt_hw_feature {
>>>    	bool prescaler_enable;
>>> +	bool post_rcs_wait;
>>>    	u32 wdog_clock_rate;
>>>    };
>>> @@ -62,7 +63,6 @@ struct imx7ulp_wdt_device {
>>>    	struct watchdog_device wdd;
>>>    	void __iomem *base;
>>>    	struct clk *clk;
>>> -	bool post_rcs_wait;
>>>    	bool ext_reset;
>>>    	const struct imx_wdt_hw_feature *hw;
>>>    };
>>> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static int imx7ulp_wdt_wait_rcs(struct imx7ulp_wdt_device *wdt)
>>>    		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>    	/* Wait 2.5 clocks after RCS done */
>>> -	if (wdt->post_rcs_wait)
>>> +	if (wdt->hw->post_rcs_wait)
>>>    		usleep_range(wait_min, wait_min + 2000);
>>>    	return ret;
>>> @@ -334,15 +334,6 @@ static int imx7ulp_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    	/* The WDOG may need to do external reset through dedicated pin */
>>>    	imx7ulp_wdt->ext_reset = of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "fsl,ext-reset-output");
>>> -	imx7ulp_wdt->post_rcs_wait = true;
>>> -	if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node,
>>> -				    "fsl,imx8ulp-wdt")) {
>>> -		dev_info(dev, "imx8ulp wdt probe\n");
>>> -		imx7ulp_wdt->post_rcs_wait = false;
>>> -	} else {
>>> -		dev_info(dev, "imx7ulp wdt probe\n");
>>> -	}
>>> -
>>>    	wdog = &imx7ulp_wdt->wdd;
>>>    	wdog->info = &imx7ulp_wdt_info;
>>>    	wdog->ops = &imx7ulp_wdt_ops;
>>> @@ -403,6 +394,12 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops imx7ulp_wdt_pm_ops = {
>>>    static const struct imx_wdt_hw_feature imx7ulp_wdt_hw = {
>>>    	.prescaler_enable = false,
>>>    	.wdog_clock_rate = 1000,
>>> +	.post_rcs_wait = true,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static const struct imx_wdt_hw_feature imx8ulp_wdt_hw = {
>>> +	.prescaler_enable = false,
>>> +	.wdog_clock_rate = 1000,
>>>    };
>>>    static const struct imx_wdt_hw_feature imx93_wdt_hw = {
>>> @@ -411,7 +408,7 @@ static const struct imx_wdt_hw_feature imx93_wdt_hw = {
>>>    };
>>>    static const struct of_device_id imx7ulp_wdt_dt_ids[] = {
>>> -	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-wdt", .data = &imx7ulp_wdt_hw, },
>>> +	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-wdt", .data = &imx8ulp_wdt_hw, },
>>
>> Nitpick: while touching something here, should imx8ulp be after imx7ulp?
> 
> Yes, it should be better.
> 
> Guenter: do you think it is okay to move it after 7ulp?
> 
Sure

Guenter

> Frank
> 
>>
>> CJ
>>
>>>    	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx7ulp-wdt", .data = &imx7ulp_wdt_hw, },
>>>    	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx93-wdt", .data = &imx93_wdt_hw, },
>>>    	{ /* sentinel */ }
>>