On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 06:06:53PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> The watchdog resets the system if the watchdog gets pinged to fast.
> Between each watchdog ping must be a pause of at least 200ms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/mfd/da9063.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063.c
> index 4d459c7f18..ab57885240 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> */
>
> #include <common.h>
> +#include <clock.h>
> #include <driver.h>
> #include <gpio.h>
> #include <restart.h>
> @@ -33,6 +34,7 @@ struct da9063 {
> struct i2c_client *client1;
> struct device_d *dev;
> unsigned int timeout;
> + uint64_t last_ping;
> };
>
> /* forbidden/impossible value; timeout will be set to this value initially to
> @@ -237,6 +239,13 @@ static int da9063_watchdog_ping(struct da9063 *priv)
> int ret;
> u8 val;
>
> + /* We need to wait at least 200ms till we can resend a ping */
> + if (!is_timeout_non_interruptible(priv->last_ping, 200 * MSECOND)) {
> + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "active ping delay\n");
> + mdelay(50);
I would expect to wait the missing time to 200ms here. Maybe doing
nothing in this case would be more appropriate here. I mean, why should
you slow down barebox here when some code triggers the watchdog too
often?
> + return da9063_watchdog_ping(priv);
Drop this, just fall through.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
