Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:28:05 +0200 | From | "ivan.khoronzhuk" <> | Subject | Re: Fwd: [PATCH 4/8] watchdog: davinci: add GET_STATUS option support |
| |
On 11/18/2013 06:24 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:21:06PM +0200, ivan.khoronzhuk wrote: >> On 11/17/2013 04:24 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 11/06/2013 03:32 AM, ivan.khoronzhuk wrote: >>>> When watchdog timer is expired we can know about it thought >>> >>> thought -> through or with >>> >> >> Ok >> >>>> GET_STATUS ioctl option. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/watchdog/davinci_wdt.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/davinci_wdt.c >>>> b/drivers/watchdog/davinci_wdt.c >>>> index 6cbf2e1..a371b2d 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/davinci_wdt.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/davinci_wdt.c >>>> @@ -144,6 +144,18 @@ static unsigned int >>>> davinci_wdt_get_timeleft(struct watchdog_device *wdd) >>>> return wdd->timeout - timer_counter; >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static unsigned int davinci_wdt_status(struct watchdog_device *wdd) >>>> +{ >>>> + u32 val; >>>> + struct davinci_wdt_device *davinci_wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd); >>>> + >>>> + val = ioread32(davinci_wdt->base + WDTCR); >>>> + if (val & WDFLAG) >>>> + return WDIOF_CARDRESET; >>>> + >>> "Card previously reset the CPU" >>> >>> Is this really accurate / correct ? >>> >>> My understanding is that the status is supposed to return the reason for >>> a previous reset/reboot, >>> not the curent condition. >>> >> >> Actually it is not so good correlate with the purpose, but I grasped >> several examples like watchdog/pcwd.c; watchdog/w83977f_wdt.c; >> watchdog/of_xilinx_wdt.c and saw that I can use it in meaning "the card initiated reset. >> After the WDT is overflowed it sets WDFLAG, so I can use it. >> It is more useful while debugging and if it is doubtful I can drop it. >> > The usual reaction to a watchdog timer event is a reset, so I am somewhat > doubtful if this is of any use in practice, other than maybe to show that it > isn't working. > > Anyway, I always dislike it when people point out other wrong usages of an API > (or anything, really) as argument to do the same. Speeding isn't legal either, > no matter how many people do it. FWIW, the wrong usages you pointed out should > in my opinion be removed, and if Wim agrees I'll be happy to submit patches to > do it. > > If you need debugging information, there is always debugfs. There should be > no need to hijack an API which is supposed to be used for something else. > > Guenter >
I'll drop it
-- Regards, Ivan Khoronzhuk
|  |