Re: [PATCH 1/5] watchdog: sync linux-omap changes

From: Russell King - ARM Linux
Date: Fri Sep 19 2008 - 18:41:03 EST


You're getting there with this patch, but still not completely up to
snuff.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:32:35PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/omap_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/omap_wdt.c
> index 3a11dad..e55f2cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/omap_wdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/omap_wdt.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/moduleparam.h>
> #include <linux/clk.h>
> +
> #include <linux/bitops.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>

This hunk is unnecessary.

> @@ -218,19 +240,18 @@ static long omap_wdt_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> return -EFAULT;
> omap_wdt_adjust_timeout(new_margin);
>
> - spin_lock(&wdt_lock);
> - omap_wdt_disable();
> - omap_wdt_set_timeout();
> - omap_wdt_enable();
> + omap_wdt_disable(wdev);
> + omap_wdt_set_timeout(wdev);
> + omap_wdt_enable(wdev);
>
> - omap_wdt_ping();
> - spin_unlock(&wdt_lock);
> + omap_wdt_ping(wdev);

This is removing the spin lock which should remain.

> /* Fall */
> case WDIOC_GETTIMEOUT:
> return put_user(timer_margin, (int __user *)arg);
> default:
> return -ENOTTY;
> }
> + return 0;

And this return statement shouldn't be required.

Apart from those three points, nice work.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/