On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 18/02/2015 at 06:50:44 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote :
>> >>> Optional properties:
>> >>> - timeout-sec: Contains the watchdog timeout in seconds.
>> >>>+- early-timeout-sec: If present, specifies a timeout value in seconds
>> >>>+ that the driver keeps on ticking the watchdog HW on behalf of user
>> >>>+ space. Once this timeout expires watchdog is left to expire in
>> >>>+ timeout-sec seconds. If this propery is set to zero, watchdog is
>> >>>+ started (or left running) so that a reset occurs in timeout-sec
>> >>>+ since the watchdog was started.
>> >>>
>> >>> Example:
>> >>>
>> >>> watchdog {
>> >>> timeout-sec = <60>;
>> >>>+ early-timeout-sec = <120>;
>> >>
>> >>That is not a generic property as you defined it; if so,
>> >>it would have to be implemented in the watchdog core code,
>> >>not in the at91 code. You'll have to document it in the bindings
>> >>description for at91sam9_wdt.
>> >
>> >Then, if this is a controller specific property, it should be defined
>> >with the 'atmel,' prefix.
>> >We're kind of looping here: the initial discussion was "is there a need
>> >for this property to be a generic one ?", and now you're saying no,
>> >while you previously left the door opened.
>> >
>> >Tomi is proposing a generic approach, as you asked him to. I agree that
>> >parsing the property in core code and making its value part of the
>> >generic watchdog struct makes sense (that's what I proposed to Tomi a
>> >few weeks ago).
>> >
>> Hmm ... the problem here is that the property description creates the
>> assumption or expectation that the property is used if defined,
>> which is not the case.
>>
>> I am not sure how to best resolve this. Maybe a comment in the property
>> description stating that implementation of is device (driver) dependent ?
>> After all, that is true for the timeout-sec property as well.
>>
>
> I would leave it in the generic file and state that it may not be
> implemented in the driver. That way, the property is documented for new
> driver writers.
That is pretty much true of any optional property. Whether implemented
in the driver or core is an implementation detail that does not belong
in the binding.
I find this property pretty questionable. Certainly having the kernel
service a watchdog either enabled at reset, in the bootloader, or by
the kernel is a useful feature. A timeout for "how long userspace
watchdog daemon takes to start" does not belong in DT. timeout-sec
should be the default/initial timeout and long enough for userspace to
start. Userspace can then change it to a more suitable value.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
