On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 22:36, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10/26/20 1:09 AM, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
> > From: Lingling Xu <ling_ling.xu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Because cpu_relax() takes different time on different SoCs, for some rare
> > cases, it would take more than 1000 cycles for waitting load operation
>
> waiting
Ok.
>
> > finished. The result of many times testing verified that changing the
> > timeout value to 2000 can solve the issue.
> >
>
> This is just a kludge that doesn't address the underlying problem.
> As the wait loop states, "Waiting the load value operation done,
> it needs two or three RTC clock cycles". This means the loop
> should wait for a maximum number of clock cycles, and not run
> as hot loop. If we assume that clk_get_rate() returns the clock
> frequency, that frequency can be used to determine how long this
> needs to be retried. It might also make sense - depending on how
> long this actually takes - to use usleep_range() instead of
> cpu_relax() to avoid the hot loop.
Agree, using usleep_range() instead makes more sense, I will look into that.
Thanks for your review.
Chunyan
>
> Guenter
>
> > Fixes: 477603467009 ("watchdog: Add Spreadtrum watchdog driver")
> > Signed-off-by: Lingling Xu <ling_ling.xu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Chunyan Zhang <chunyan.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/watchdog/sprd_wdt.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sprd_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/sprd_wdt.c
> > index f3c90b4afead..4f2a8c6d6485 100644
> > --- a/drivers/watchdog/sprd_wdt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sprd_wdt.c
> > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
> >
> > #define SPRD_WDT_CNT_HIGH_SHIFT 16
> > #define SPRD_WDT_LOW_VALUE_MASK GENMASK(15, 0)
> > -#define SPRD_WDT_LOAD_TIMEOUT 1000
> > +#define SPRD_WDT_LOAD_TIMEOUT 2000
> >
> > struct sprd_wdt {
> > void __iomem *base;
> >
>
