Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add watchdog support

[Amit Kucheria]

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:12 AM Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu 30 Jan 05:27 PST 2020, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>
> > TSENS IP v2.3 onwards adds support for a watchdog to detect if the TSENS
> > HW FSM is stuck. Add support to detect and restart the FSM in the
> > driver. The watchdog is configured by the bootloader, we just enable the
> > watchdog bark as a debug feature in the kernel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-v2.c     | 10 +++++++
> >  drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.h        | 14 ++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c
> > index 9d1594d2f1ed..ee2414f33606 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-common.c
> > @@ -377,6 +377,26 @@ irqreturn_t tsens_critical_irq_thread(int irq, void *data)
> >       struct tsens_irq_data d;
> >       unsigned long flags;
> >       int temp, ret, i;
> > +     u32 wdog_status, wdog_count;
> > +
> > +     if (priv->feat->has_watchdog) {
> > +             ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[WDOG_BARK_STATUS], &wdog_status);
> > +             if (ret)
> > +                     return ret;
> > +
> > +             if (wdog_status) {
> > +                     /* Clear WDOG interrupt */
> > +                     regmap_field_write(priv->rf[WDOG_BARK_CLEAR], 1);
> > +                     regmap_field_write(priv->rf[WDOG_BARK_CLEAR], 0);
> > +                     ret = regmap_field_read(priv->rf[WDOG_BARK_COUNT], &wdog_count);
> > +                     if (ret)
> > +                             return ret;
> > +                     if (wdog_count)
> > +                             dev_dbg(priv->dev, "%s: watchdog count: %d\n", __func__, wdog_count);
> > +
> > +                     return IRQ_HANDLED;
>
> Patch looks good, but would is make sense to fall through and handle
> critical interrupts as well (both in positive and error cases of this
> hunk)?

Yes, it makes sense. I'll remove the return IRQ_HANDLED and add a
comment instead.

> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn