On 05/24/2018 11:44 PM, Marco Felsch wrote:
On 18-05-24 11:07, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:51:00PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
The watchdog can be enabled in previous steps (e.g. the bootloader). Check
if the watchdog is already running, retrieve the set timeout value and
set it again to set the new timeout reference mark.
Fixes: 5e9c16e37608 ("watchdog: Add DA9063 PMIC watchdog driver.")
Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/watchdog/da9063_wdt.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/da9063_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/da9063_wdt.c
index 6b0092b7d5a6..c5bd5ffe8ded 100644
--- a/drivers/watchdog/da9063_wdt.c
+++ b/drivers/watchdog/da9063_wdt.c
@@ -45,6 +45,18 @@ static unsigned int da9063_wdt_timeout_to_sel(unsigned int secs)
return DA9063_TWDSCALE_MAX;
}
+/*
+ * Return 0 if watchdog is disabled, else non zero.
+ */
+static unsigned int da9063_wdt_is_running(struct da9063 *da9063)
+{
+ unsigned int val;
+
+ regmap_read(da9063->regmap, DA9063_REG_CONTROL_D, &val);
+
+ return val & DA9063_TWDSCALE_MASK;
+}
+
static int da9063_wdt_disable_timer(struct da9063 *da9063)
{
return regmap_update_bits(da9063->regmap, DA9063_REG_CONTROL_D,
@@ -180,6 +192,7 @@ static int da9063_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct da9063 *da9063;
struct watchdog_device *wdd;
+ unsigned int cur_timeout;
if (!pdev->dev.parent)
return -EINVAL;
@@ -206,6 +219,12 @@ static int da9063_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
watchdog_set_drvdata(wdd, da9063);
+ cur_timeout = da9063_wdt_is_running(da9063);
+ if (cur_timeout) {
+ set_bit(WDOG_HW_RUNNING, &wdd->status);
+ _da9063_wdt_set_timeout(da9063, cur_timeout);
Sorry, I should have been more specific. That doesn't make sense as written
since it just sets the same timeout as before. You would have to replace
the second argument with the desired timeout in seconds, and call
da9063_wdt_timeout_to_sel() in _da9063_wdt_set_timeout(). That would
actually make sense since all callers of _da9063_wdt_set_timeout()
do that anyway before the call.
That's the reason why I used da9063_wdt_set_timeout() in v6 because in
v6 da9063_wdt_is_running() has returned the mapped timeout in seconds.
However, I'm with you to move da9063_wdt_timeout_to_sel() to
_da9063_wdt_set_timeout(). Should that happen in a seperate patch?
Yes, that would be better.
Yes it sets the same timeout as before but I didn't want change the timeout
value without the user knowledge. Should I rather use the ping()
function or is it okay to change the timeout value to a different value
as set before by the bootloader?
I thought that changing the timeout to the configured or default value was
the idea.
Guenter
Marco
Guenter
+ }
+
return devm_watchdog_register_device(&pdev->dev, wdd);
}
--
2.17.0
--
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
