On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 03:18:16PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Commit 0b944fce55f4 ("watchdog: permit `wd 0` for non-stoppable, but
> inactive, watchdogs") silently broke use of non-stoppable, but inactive,
> watchdogs altogether. Because those always had watchdog_hw_running
> evaluating to false, it early exited without a chance to ever actually
> set the timeout (and for watchdog_hw_running to evaluate to != false).
>
> This results in following watchdog drivers being broken in v2020.08.0:
>
> - imxwd
> - f71808e_wdt
> - at91sam9_wdt
>
> Fixes: 0b944fce55f4 ("watchdog: permit `wd 0` for non-stoppable, but inactive, watchdogs")
> Reported-by: Bastian Krause <bst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Please apply to master (and to v2020.08.1?).
> ---
> drivers/watchdog/wd_core.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/wd_core.c b/drivers/watchdog/wd_core.c
> index ab1dcaa40a3a..4247288dbd0a 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/wd_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/wd_core.c
> @@ -45,12 +45,11 @@ int watchdog_set_timeout(struct watchdog *wd, unsigned timeout)
> if (timeout > wd->timeout_max)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (watchdog_hw_running(wd) == false)
> - return 0;
> -
> pr_debug("setting timeout on %s to %ds\n", watchdog_name(wd), timeout);
>
> ret = wd->set_timeout(wd, timeout);
> + if (ret == -ENOSYS && watchdog_hw_running(wd) == false)
Instead of testing for a specific error code from set_timeout(), can't
we just do a
if (!timeout && !watchdog_hw_running(wd))
return 0;
This would make the intention of the code more clear.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
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
