On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:19:22AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> Great thanks for your suggestion :-)
>
> feedback inline below
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 22:04, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 May 2015 19:24:48 fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> +static void watchdog_check_min_max_pretimeout(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
> >> +{
> >> + /*
> >> + * Check that we have valid min and max pretimeout values, if
> >> + * not reset them both to 0 (=not used or unknown)
> >> + */
> >> + if (wdd->min_pretimeout > wdd->max_pretimeout) {
> >> + pr_info("Invalid min and max pretimeout, resetting to 0!\n");
> >> + wdd->min_pretimeout = 0;
> >> + wdd->max_pretimeout = 0;
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >
> > I would probably just fold this function into the existing
> > watchdog_check_min_max_timeout() and check both normal and pre-timeout
> > there.
>
> yes, I can do that , and that is good idea
>
> >
> >> +/**
> >> + * watchdog_init_pretimeout() - initialize the pretimeout field
> >> + * @pretimeout_parm: pretimeout module parameter
> >> + * @dev: Device that stores the timeout-sec property
> >> + *
> >> + * Initialize the pretimeout field of the watchdog_device struct with either
> >> + * the pretimeout module parameter (if it is valid value) or the timeout-sec
> >> + * property (only if it is a valid value and the timeout_parm is out of bounds).
> >> + * If none of them are valid then we keep the old value (which should normally
> >> + * be the default pretimeout value.
> >> + *
> >> + * A zero is returned on success and -EINVAL for failure.
> >> + */
> >> +int watchdog_init_pretimeout(struct watchdog_device *wdd,
> >> + unsigned int pretimeout_parm, struct device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> + int ret = 0;
> >> + u32 timeouts[2];
> >> +
> >> + watchdog_check_min_max_pretimeout(wdd);
> >> +
> >> + /* try to get the timeout module parameter first */
> >> + if (!watchdog_pretimeout_invalid(wdd, pretimeout_parm) &&
> >> + pretimeout_parm) {
> >> + wdd->pretimeout = pretimeout_parm;
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >> + if (pretimeout_parm)
> >> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + /* try to get the timeout_sec property */
> >> + if (!dev || !dev->of_node)
> >> + return ret;
> >> + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(dev->of_node,
> >> + "timeout-sec", timeouts, 2);
> >> + if (!watchdog_pretimeout_invalid(wdd, timeouts[1]) && timeouts[1])
> >> + wdd->pretimeout = timeouts[1];
> >> + else
> >> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(watchdog_init_pretimeout);
> >
> > Same here: the function is very similar to the watchdog_init_timeout
> > function, and it reads the same property, so just do both here.
> >
> > The easiest way for that is probably to use of_find_property()
> > and of_prop_next_u32() to read the two numbers.
>
> integrate watchdog_init_pretimeout and watchdog_init_timeout will be a
> little hard,
> we may need to change this API to :
>
> watchdog_init_timeouts(struct watchdog_device *wdd, unsigned int timeout_parm,
> unsigned int pretimeout_parm, struct device *dev)
>
> then we need to update all the watchdog drivers which use this API,
> maybe we can do this in a individual patchset, after this pretimeout
> patch is merged.
>
> Is that OK ? :-) any thought?
>
That is what I would recommend.
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
