Hello Marco,
On 11/4/19 9:34 AM, Marco Felsch wrote:
> On 19-11-04 09:27, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> 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.
I assume you're using the boot.watchdog_timeout parameter? The time contained
in this parameter is communicated to the watchdog in boot_entry, which is called
twice in a normal bootchooser boot, once from the boot command and once more
from bootchooser.
This means that your boot time would increase by 200 ms. If this matter to you,
you might want to change this, so watchdog_set_timeout is called only once.
And if you do so, you could drop this patch. The only other places that feed
the watchdog are the watchdog poller and the wd command. The watchdog poller
already waits 500 ms between pings and the command is meant for debugging/testing.
If someone wants to feed the watchdog that fast while testing, why prevent them?
(I assume you don't need to wait 200 ms between ping and disabling WDT, if you do,
one more place is the .priority watchdog device parameter in barebox-next)
Cheers
Ahmad
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Just prepared a v2 with a busy wait after discussed it with Lucas.
> Thanks for your input too :)
>
> Regards,
> Marco
>
>> 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 |
>>
>
--
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
