On Thursday, March 02, 2017, Guenter Roeck wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

The rate check should probably be here to avoid situations where
rate < 16384.

Do I need that if it's technically not possible to have a 'rate'
less

than 25MHz?

quoted

These watchdogs HW are always feed directly from the peripheral
clock and there is no such thing as a 16kHz peripheral block an
any Renesas

SoC.

quoted

Following that line of argument, can clk_get_rate() ever return 0 ?

In the DT binding, it says that a clock source is required to be present.

If the user leaves out the "clocks =", then devm_clk_get will fail.

If the user puts in some crazy value for "clocks = ", then maybe you
could get
0 (assuming there is a valid clock node they made by themselves
somewhere that runs at 0Hz).
But in that extreme case, I think they deserve to have it crash and
burn because who knows what they are doing.

But then there could also be a clock source with a rate of less than 16
kHz, as wrong as it may be ?

Anyway, I disagree about the crash and burn. It isn't as if this would be
really fatal except for the watchdog driver. Bad data in devicetree should
not result in a system crash.

OK. I will put the check in. Something like:

	rate = clk_get_rate(priv->clk); 
	if (rate < 16384) {
		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid clock specified\n");
		return -ENOENT;
	}

quoted

quoted

That is the point of devm_ functions. It also means that you won't
need a remove function if you also use devm_watchdog_register_device().

OK.
I see that only 1 driver is using devm_watchdog_register_device
(wdat_wdt.c), so maybe that is a new method.

Yes, it is quite new. Still, you are a bit behind. I count 19 users in the
mainline kernel.

OK, I see now.


Thank you,
Chris