[PATCH 3/5] watchdog: sp805: set WDOG_HW_RUNNING when appropriate
From: scott.branden@broadcom.com (Scott Branden)
Date: 2018-05-23 07:52:35
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-watchdog, lkml
On 18-05-22 04:24 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
Hi Guenter, On 5/22/2018 1:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:quoted
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:47:18AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:quoted
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 <redacted> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Olovyannikov <redacted> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com> --- ? drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ ? 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.cb/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 @@????? /* control register masks */ ????? #define??? INT_ENABLE??? (1 << 0) ????? #define??? RESET_ENABLE??? (1 << 1) +??? #define??? ENABLE_MASK??? (INT_ENABLE | RESET_ENABLE) ? #define WDTINTCLR??????? 0x00C ? #define WDTRIS??????????? 0x010 ? #define WDTMIS??????????? 0x014@@ -74,6 +75,18 @@ module_param(nowayout, bool, 0);? MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout, ????????? "Set to 1 to keep watchdog running after device release"); ? +/* returns true if wdt is running; otherwise returns false */ +static bool wdt_is_running(struct watchdog_device *wdd) +{ +??? struct sp805_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd); + +??? if ((readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK) == +??????? ENABLE_MASK) +??????? return true; +??? else +??????? return false;????return !!(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