lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v21 13/13] acpi/arm64: Add SBSA Generic Watchdog support in GTDT driver
Hi Mark,

On 21 March 2017 at 02:09, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:57:58AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> On 18 March 2017 at 04:01, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:15AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>
>> > I've not been able to find where the ACPI spec says that zero is not a
>> > valid GSIV. This may simply be an oversight/ambiguity in the spec.
>> >
>> > Is there any statement to that effect?
>>
>> you are right, zero is a valid GSIV, I will delete this check. Thanks
>
> That being the case, how does one describe a watchdog that does not have
> an interrupt?

I think we may can use "Timer Flags", because all the GSIV come with a flag,
if we can define a bit field called "valid" for all GSIV

Bit Field Bit Offset Number of bits Description
Valid 31 1 This bit
indicates the validity of the timer interrupt
1:
Interrupt is valid
0:
Interrupt is invalid
Then we don't need to test the value of GSIV, just test this bit instead.

Just my thought, hope this makes sense to all of you :-)

>
> As I mentioned, I think this is an oversight/ambiguity in the spec tat
> we should address.
>
>> > My reading of SBSA is that there is one watchdog in the system.
>> >
>> > Is that not the case?
>>
>> do you mean:
>> ---------------
>> 4.2.4 Watchdogs
>> The base server system implements a Generic Watchdog as specified in
>> APPENDIX A: Generic Watchdog.
>> ---------------
>>
>> I am not sure about that if this is saying "we only have one SBSA
>> watchdog in a system"
>>
>> would you let me know where mention it? Do I miss something?
>
> My reading was that the 'a' above meant a single element. i.e.
>
> The base server system implements _a_ Generic Watchdog as
> specified in APPENDIX A: Generic Watchdog.
>
> Subsequently in 4.2.5, it is stated:
>
> In this scenario, the system wakeup timer or generic watchdog is
> still required to send its interrupt.
>
> ... which only makes sense if there is a single watchdog in the system.
>
> Perhaps this is an oversight in the specification.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.



--
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-21 06:13    [W:0.088 / U:28.556 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site