On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:31:18PM +0000, Chris Brandt wrote:
> On Thursday, March 02, 2017, Guenter Roeck worte:
> > > > The above two lines are unnecessary.
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> > > #I'll assume you mean take out just the last sentence (2 lines), not
> > > both sentences (all 3 lines).
> > >
> > The two empty lines.
>
> Ooops! That makes more sense.
>
>
> > > > > + rate = clk_get_rate(priv->clk);
> > > > > + if (!rate)
> > > > > + return -ENOENT;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Assume slowest clock rate possible (CKS=7) */
> > > > > + rate /= 16384;
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > The rate check should probably be here to avoid situations where
> > > > rate < 16384.
> > >
> > > Do I need that if it's technically not possible to have a 'rate' less
> > than 25MHz?
> > >
> > > These watchdogs HW are always feed directly from the peripheral clock
> > > and there is no such thing as a 16kHz peripheral block an any Renesas
> > SoC.
> > >
> > Following that line of argument, can clk_get_rate() ever return 0 ?
>
> In the DT binding, it says that a clock source is required to be present.
>
> If the user leaves out the "clocks =", then devm_clk_get will fail.
>
> If the user puts in some crazy value for "clocks = ", then maybe you could get
> 0 (assuming there is a valid clock node they made by themselves somewhere that
> runs at 0Hz).
> But in that extreme case, I think they deserve to have it crash and burn because
> who knows what they are doing.
>
But then there could also be a clock source with a rate of less than 16 kHz, as
wrong as it may be ?
Anyway, I disagree about the crash and burn. It isn't as if this would be really
fatal except for the watchdog driver. Bad data in devicetree should not result
in a system crash.
>
> > > > > + priv->wdev.max_hw_heartbeat_ms = (1000 * U8_MAX)/rate;
> > > >
> > > > space before and after /
> > >
> > > OK.
> > > #Funny because checkpatch.pl said it didn't like a space on one side
> > > but not the other, so I choose no spaces and it was happy. I'm way
> > > below 80 characters for that line so it doesn't matter to me.
> > >
> >
> > That would be a bug in checkpatch. coding style, chapter 3.1, still
> > applies.
> > Or at least I hope so.
>
> OK. Thank you for the clarification.
>
>
> > > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return 0;
> >
> > Also just
> > return ret;
>
> OK.
>
>
> > > > > +static int rza_wdt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> > > > > + struct rza_wdt *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + watchdog_unregister_device(&priv->wdev);
> > > > > + iounmap(priv->base);
> > > >
> > > > iounmap is unnecessary (and wrong).
> > >
> > > Anything mapped with devm_ioremap_resource() automatically gets
> > > unmapped when the drive gets unloaded?
> >
> > That is the point of devm_ functions. It also means that you won't need a
> > remove function if you also use devm_watchdog_register_device().
>
> OK.
> I see that only 1 driver is using devm_watchdog_register_device (wdat_wdt.c), so
> maybe that is a new method.
>
Yes, it is quite new. Still, you are a bit behind. I count 19 users
in the mainline kernel.
Guenter
