Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: sp805: set WDOG_HW_RUNNING when appropriate

[Scott Branden]

On 18-05-22 04:24 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On 5/22/2018 1:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:47:18AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> > > If the watchdog hardware is already enabled during the boot process,
> > > when the Linux watchdog driver loads, it should reset the watchdog and
> > > tell the watchdog framework. As a result, ping can be generated from
> > > the watchdog framework, until the userspace watchdog daemon takes over
> > > control
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Â drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > Â 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c 
> > > b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
> > > index 1484609..408ffbe 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
> > > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> > > ÂÂÂÂÂ /* control register masks */
> > > ÂÂÂÂÂ #defineÂÂÂ INT_ENABLEÂÂÂ (1 << 0)
> > > ÂÂÂÂÂ #defineÂÂÂ RESET_ENABLEÂÂÂ (1 << 1)
> > > +ÂÂÂ #defineÂÂÂ ENABLE_MASKÂÂÂ (INT_ENABLE | RESET_ENABLE)
> > > Â #define WDTINTCLRÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0x00C
> > > Â #define WDTRISÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0x010
> > > Â #define WDTMISÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0x014
> > > @@ -74,6 +75,18 @@ module_param(nowayout, bool, 0);
> > > Â MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout,
> > > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "Set to 1 to keep watchdog running after device release");
> > > Â +/* returns true if wdt is running; otherwise returns false */
> > > +static bool wdt_is_running(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
> > > +{
> > > +ÂÂÂ struct sp805_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
> > > +
> > > +ÂÂÂ if ((readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK) ==
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ENABLE_MASK)
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return true;
> > > +ÂÂÂ else
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return false;
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂreturn !!(readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK));
>
> Note ENABLE_MASK contains two bits (INT_ENABLE and RESET_ENABLE); 
> therefore, a simple !!(expression) would not work? That is, the masked 
> result needs to be compared against the mask again to ensure both bits 
> are set, right?
Ray - your original code looks correct to me. Easier to read and less 
prone to errors as shown in the attempted translation to a single statement.
> Thanks,
>
> Ray