Hi Guenter,
Thank you for your comments again,
Here are my responses.
Regards,
Steve
On 15 May 2015 03:13, Guenter Roeck
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/4] watchdog: da9062: DA9062 watchdog driver
>
[...]
> > +static void da9062_apply_window_protection(struct da9062_watchdog
> *wdt)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long delay =
> msecs_to_jiffies(DA9062_RESET_PROTECTION_MS);
> > + unsigned long timeout = wdt->j_time_stamp + delay;
> > + unsigned long now = jiffies;
> > + unsigned int diff_ms;
> > +
> > + /* if time-limit has not elapsed then wait for remainder */
> > + if (time_before(now, timeout)) {
> > + diff_ms = jiffies_to_msecs(timeout-now);
> > + dev_dbg(wdt->hw->dev,
> > + "Kicked too quickly. Delaying %u msecs\n", diff_ms);
> > + msleep(diff_ms);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return;
>
> Unnecessary return statement.
>
Deleted.
> > +static unsigned int da9062_wdt_timeout_to_sel(unsigned int secs)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = DA9062_TWDSCALE_MIN; i <= DA9062_TWDSCALE_MAX; i++) {
> > + if (wdt_timeout[i] >= secs)
> > + return i;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return DA9062_TWDSCALE_MAX;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int da9062_reset_watchdog_timer(struct da9062_watchdog *wdt)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + da9062_apply_window_protection(wdt);
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_update_bits(wdt->hw->regmap,
> > + DA9062AA_CONTROL_F,
> > + DA9062AA_WATCHDOG_MASK,
> > + DA9062AA_WATCHDOG_MASK);
> > +
> > + da9062_set_window_start(wdt);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int da9062_wdt_update_timeout_register(struct da9062_watchdog *wdt,
> > + unsigned int regval)
> > +{
> > + struct da9062 *chip = wdt->hw;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = da9062_reset_watchdog_timer(wdt);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to ping the watchdog (err = %d)\n",
> > + ret);
>
> I am kind of torn about all this noisiness on error. Personally I would tend to
> ask people to let user space handle it, and not be that noisy in the kernel.
>
> Wim, any guidance ?
At the time I thought it would be a really good idea to keep a debug message in.
But -- this has been questioned several times and so I will remove.
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap,
> > + DA9062AA_CONTROL_D,
> > + DA9062AA_TWDSCALE_MASK,
> > + regval);
>
> ... and it is inconsistent - no error message here.
>
Removed the dev_err() defined previously and therefore this makes this return
without an error message more consistent with the earlier parts of the function.
(no change needed)
[...]
> > +static int da9062_wdt_stop(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
> > +{
> > + struct da9062_watchdog *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = da9062_reset_watchdog_timer(wdt);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(wdt->hw->dev, "Failed to ping the watchdog (err =
> %d)\n",
> > + ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_update_bits(wdt->hw->regmap,
> > + DA9062AA_CONTROL_D,
> > + DA9062AA_TWDSCALE_MASK,
> > + DA9062_TWDSCALE_DISABLE);
> > + if (ret)
> > + dev_alert(wdt->hw->dev, "Watchdog failed to stop (err =
> %d)\n",
> > + ret);
>
> .. and now we have an alert. Hmm..
.. I've replaced it with a dev_err()
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int da9062_wdt_ping(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
> > +{
> > + struct da9062_watchdog *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + dev_dbg(wdt->hw->dev, "watchdog ping\n");
> > +
>
> Is this really valuable enough to keep in the code ?
>
Removed also.
> > + ret = da9062_reset_watchdog_timer(wdt);
> > + if (ret)
> > + dev_err(wdt->hw->dev, "Failed to ping the watchdog (err =
> %d)\n",
> > + ret);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
[...]
> > +
> > +/* E_WDG_WARN interrupt handler */
> > +static irqreturn_t da9062_wdt_wdg_warn_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct da9062_watchdog *wdt = data;
> > +
> > + dev_notice(wdt->hw->dev, "Watchdog timeout warning trigger.\n");
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
> > +
[...]
> > +static int da9062_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + struct da9062 *chip;
> > + struct da9062_watchdog *wdt;
> > + int irq;
> > +
> > + chip = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > + if (!chip)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + wdt = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*wdt), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!wdt)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + wdt->hw = chip;
> > +
> > + wdt->wdtdev.info = &da9062_watchdog_info;
> > + wdt->wdtdev.ops = &da9062_watchdog_ops;
> > + wdt->wdtdev.min_timeout = DA9062_WDT_MIN_TIMEOUT;
> > + wdt->wdtdev.max_timeout = DA9062_WDT_MAX_TIMEOUT;
> > + wdt->wdtdev.timeout = DA9062_WDG_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
> > + wdt->wdtdev.status = WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT_INIT_STATUS;
> > +
> > + watchdog_set_drvdata(&wdt->wdtdev, wdt);
> > + dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, wdt);
> > +
> > + irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "WDG_WARN");
> > + if (irq < 0) {
> > + dev_err(wdt->hw->dev, "Failed to get IRQ.\n");
> > + ret = irq;
> > + goto error;
>
> Just return; the label does not serve a useful purpose. Same for the other
> goto statements below.
Agreed. This is changed now.
> Also, is the interrupt mandatory ? All it does is to display a message.
> Looks very optional to me.
It is a place holder for something more application specific.
I could remove it, but I figured it would just get re-added when somebody takes the
driver and modifies it for their needs.
If this is a problem however, it can go.
Please advise ..
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, NULL,
> > + da9062_wdt_wdg_warn_irq_handler,
> > + IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT |
> IRQF_SHARED,
> > + "WDG_WARN", wdt);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(wdt->hw->dev,
> > + "Failed to request watchdog device IRQ.\n");
> > + goto error;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = watchdog_register_device(&wdt->wdtdev);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + dev_err(wdt->hw->dev,
> > + "watchdog registration incomplete (%d)\n", ret);
>
> incomplete ? Should that be "failed" ?
Sure. Changed the dev_err()
[...]
> > +static struct platform_driver da9062_wdt_driver = {
> > + .probe = da9062_wdt_probe,
> > + .remove = da9062_wdt_remove,
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "da9062-watchdog",
> > + },
> > +};
> > +module_platform_driver(da9062_wdt_driver);
> > +
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("S Twiss <stwiss.opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx>");
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("WDT device driver for Dialog DA9062");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > +MODULE_ALIAS("platform: da9062-watchdog");
> >
> Normally I don't see a space between "platform" and the driver name.
> Does this work ?
Removed the space
Regards,
Steve
--
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
