Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: dw_wdt: pat the watchdog before enabling it

[Guenter Roeck]

On 01/22/2015 09:09 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Jisheng,
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dear Doug,
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:17:22 -0800
> > Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On some dw_wdt implementations the "top" register may be initted to 0
> > > at bootup.  In such a case, each "pat" of the watchdog will reset the
> > > timer to 0xffff.  That's pretty short.
> >
> > + Guenter Roeck
> >
> > This should have been fixed by dfa07141e7a792("watchdog: dw_wdt: initialise
> > TOP_INIT in dw_wdt_set_top()")
>
> I will admit that I'm testing on a tree that doesn't have your patch
> (I'm on a 3.14 kernel with lots of backports).  ...but I did try
> cherry-picking your patch before I wrote up mine and it didn't fix my
> problem.  I believe that the watchdog that's in Rockchip rk3288 must
> be a slightly different version of the IP block than you're working
> with.
>
> Specifically I see the register WDT_TORR that has an offset of 0x4.
> That's the RANGE_REG in your code.  It shows bits 3:0 set the timeout
> period (0 = 0xffff and 15 = 0x7fffffff).  It shows bits 31:4 as
> "reserved".
Not sure where that leaves us. Does that mean the driver supports different
hardware with different register sets ? Should that be documented in the driver,
and should we have (or do we need) different compatible statements for those
variants, and conditional code in the driver ?

And does it mean we need both patches, at least for some of the hardware
variants ? If so, what happens if those patches are applied and the resulting
driver runs on the other hardware ?

Thanks,
Guenter

--
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/