Hi Guenter/Robin,
On 5/23/2018 11:09 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 06:15:14PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 23/05/18 17:29, 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Olovyannikov
<vladimir.olovyannikov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
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.
Well,
return readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK == ENABLE_MASK;
would probably be reasonable to anyone other than the 80-column zealots, but
removing the silly boolean-to-boolean translation idiom really only
emphasises the fact that it's fundamentally a big complex statement; for
maximum clarity I'd be inclined to separate the two logical operations (read
and comparison), e.g.:
u32 wdtcontrol = readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL);
return wdtcontrol & ENABLE_MASK == ENABLE_MASK;
== has higher precendence than bitwise &, so this will need ( ),
but otherwise I agree.
Sure. Let me change the code to the following:
u32 wdtcontrol = readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL);
return (wdtcontrol & ENABLE_MASK) == ENABLE_MASK;
Thanks.
Ray
which is still -3 lines vs. the original.
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));
FWIW, getting the desired result should only need one logical not swapping
for a bitwise one there:
return !(~readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK);
but that's well into "too clever for its own good" territory ;)
Yes, that would be confusing.
Robin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
