Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: sp805: set WDOG_HW_RUNNING when appropriate | From | Scott Branden <> | Date | Wed, 23 May 2018 10:15:38 -0700 |
| |
Raym
On 18-05-23 09:29 AM, Ray Jui wrote: > Hi Robin, > > On 5/23/2018 4:48 AM, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 23/05/18 08:52, Scott Branden wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 18-05-22 04:24 PM, Ray Jui wrote: >>>> Hi Guenter, >>>> >>>> On 5/22/2018 1:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:47:18AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote: >>>>>> If the watchdog hardware is already enabled during the boot process, >>>>>> when the Linux watchdog driver loads, it should reset the >>>>>> watchdog and >>>>>> tell the watchdog framework. As a result, ping can be generated from >>>>>> the watchdog framework, until the userspace watchdog daemon takes >>>>>> over >>>>>> control >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Olovyannikov >>>>>> <vladimir.olovyannikov@broadcom.com> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c >>>>>> b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c >>>>>> index 1484609..408ffbe 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c >>>>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ >>>>>> /* control register masks */ >>>>>> #define INT_ENABLE (1 << 0) >>>>>> #define RESET_ENABLE (1 << 1) >>>>>> + #define ENABLE_MASK (INT_ENABLE | RESET_ENABLE) >>>>>> #define WDTINTCLR 0x00C >>>>>> #define WDTRIS 0x010 >>>>>> #define WDTMIS 0x014 >>>>>> @@ -74,6 +75,18 @@ module_param(nowayout, bool, 0); >>>>>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout, >>>>>> "Set to 1 to keep watchdog running after device release"); >>>>>> +/* returns true if wdt is running; otherwise returns false */ >>>>>> +static bool wdt_is_running(struct watchdog_device *wdd) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + struct sp805_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if ((readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK) == >>>>>> + ENABLE_MASK) >>>>>> + return true; >>>>>> + else >>>>>> + return false; >>>>> >>>>> return !!(readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK)); >>>>> >>>> >>>> Note ENABLE_MASK contains two bits (INT_ENABLE and RESET_ENABLE); >>>> therefore, a simple !!(expression) would not work? That is, the >>>> masked result needs to be compared against the mask again to ensure >>>> both bits are set, right? >>> Ray - your original code looks correct to me. Easier to read and >>> less prone to errors as shown in the attempted translation to a >>> single statement. >> >> if (<boolean condition>) >> return true; >> else >> return false; >> >> still looks really dumb, though, and IMO is actually harder to read >> than just "return <boolean condition>;" because it forces you to stop >> and double-check that the logic is, in fact, only doing the obvious >> thing. > > If you can propose a way to modify my original code above to make it > more readable, I'm fine to make the change. > > As I mentioned, I don't think the following change proposed by Guenter > will work due to the reason I pointed out: > > return !!(readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK)); What they are looking for is: return ((readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK) == ENABLE_MASK);
or maybe: return !!((readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK) == ENABLE_MASK); > >> >> Robin. >> >> >> >> p.s. No thanks for making me remember the mind-boggling horror of >> briefly maintaining part of this legacy codebase... :P >> >> $ grep -r '? true : false' --include=*.cpp . | wc -l >> 951
| |