Hi, Guenter
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] watchdog: imx7ulp: Strictly follow the sequence
> for wdog operations
>
> On 7/28/20 9:50 PM, Anson Huang wrote:
> > Hi, Guenter
> >
> >
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] watchdog: imx7ulp: Strictly follow the
> >> sequence for wdog operations
> >>
> >> On 7/28/20 7:20 PM, Anson Huang wrote:
> >>> According to reference manual, the i.MX7ULP WDOG's operations should
> >>> follow below sequence:
> >>>
> >>> 1. disable global interrupts;
> >>> 2. unlock the wdog and wait unlock bit set; 3. reconfigure the wdog
> >>> and wait for reconfiguration bit set; 4. enabel global interrupts.
> >>>
> >>> Strictly follow the recommended sequence can make it more robust.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> Changes since V1:
> >>> - use readl_poll_timeout_atomic() instead of usleep_ranges() since
> >>> IRQ is
> >> disabled.
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
> >>> b/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c index 7993c8c..7d2b12e 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/imx7ulp_wdt.c
> >>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> >>>
> >>> #include <linux/clk.h>
> >>> #include <linux/io.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/iopoll.h>
> >>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> >>> #include <linux/module.h>
> >>> #include <linux/of.h>
> >>> @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@
> >>> #define DEFAULT_TIMEOUT 60
> >>> #define MAX_TIMEOUT 128
> >>> #define WDOG_CLOCK_RATE 1000
> >>> +#define WDOG_WAIT_TIMEOUT 10000
> >>>
> >>> static bool nowayout = WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT;
> >> module_param(nowayout,
> >>> bool, 0000); @@ -48,17 +50,31 @@ struct imx7ulp_wdt_device {
> >>> struct clk *clk;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +static inline void imx7ulp_wdt_wait(void __iomem *base, u32 mask) {
> >>> + u32 val = readl(base + WDOG_CS);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!(val & mask))
> >>> + WARN_ON(readl_poll_timeout_atomic(base + WDOG_CS, val,
> >>> + val & mask, 0,
> >>> + WDOG_WAIT_TIMEOUT));
> >>
> >> I am not a friend of WARN_ON, especially in situations like this.
> >> Please explain why this is needed, and why a return of -ETIMEDOUT is
> >> not feasible.
> >
> > OK, I will use return value of -ETIMEOUT and handle it in the caller.
> >
> >>
> >> Also, I do not believe that a 10 milli-second timeout is warranted.
> >> This will need to be backed up by the datasheet.
> >>
> >
> > There is no such info provided in reference manual or datasheet, but I
> > just did an experiment, the unlock window is open in less than 1us
> > after sending unlock command, and ONLY last for ONLY 2~3 us then
> > close, the reconfiguration status bit will be set in less than 1us after register
> write. So what do you recommend for this timeout value? 100mS for safe?
> >
>
> That would be even worse. You say yourself that the window is only open for a
> few microseconds. Now you are suggesting to hold the entire system hostage
> for up to
> 100 mS if the code misses that window for some reason. Based on what you
> said,
> 100 uS might be barely acceptable. 10-20 uS would be reasonable. But not
> 100 mS.
OK, I will use 20us.
Thanks,
Anson
