Hi Darren,
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 09:58:26AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 10/14/23 02:12, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 05:45:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 02:02:36AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > > > Commit abd3ac7902fb ("watchdog: sbsa: Support architecture version 1")
> > > > > introduced new timer math for watchdog revision 1 with the 48 bit offset
> > > > > register.
> > > > >
> > > > > The gwdt->clk and timeout are u32, but the argument being calculated is
> > > > > u64. Without a cast, the compiler performs u32 operations, truncating
> > > > > intermediate steps, resulting in incorrect values.
> > > > >
> > > > > A watchdog revision 1 implementation with a gwdt->clk of 1GHz and a
> > > > > timeout of 600s writes 3647256576 to the one shot watchdog instead of
> > > > > 300000000000, resulting in the watchdog firing in 3.6s instead of 600s.
> > > > >
> > > > > Force u64 math by casting the first argument (gwdt->clk) as a u64. Make
> > > > > the order of operations explicit with parenthesis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: abd3ac7902fb ("watchdog: sbsa: Support architecture version 1")
> > > > > Reported-by: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <darren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: linux-watchdog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.14.x
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Guenter or Wim, I haven't seen this land in the RCs or in next yet. Have
> > > you already picked it up? Anything more needed from me?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I am suffering from what I can only describe as a severe case of
> > maintainer/reviewer PTSD, and I have yet to find a way of dealing with that.
> >
>
> I'm sorry to hear it Guenter, it can be a thankless slog of a treadmill
> sometimes. I found having a co-maintainer a huge help to even out the human
> factors while maintaining the x86 platform drivers (in the before times).
>
> In the short term, should I ask if one of the Arm maintainers would be willing
> to pick this patch up?
I'm picking this one up right now. So no need to ask it to the Arm maintainers.
Kind regards,
Wim.
