Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:44:13 -0800 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] watchdog: xilinx: Use of_property_read_u32 |
| |
On 02/22/2014 10:14 PM, Alejandro Cabrera wrote: > On 22/2/2014 5:36 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 02/22/2014 07:52 PM, Alejandro Cabrera wrote: >>> On 22/2/2014 3:18 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> On 02/22/2014 05:08 PM, Alejandro Cabrera wrote: >>>>> On 22/2/2014 10:46 AM, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote: >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>>>> Use of_property_read_u32 functions to clean probe function. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek<michal.simek@xilinx.com> >>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck<linux@roeck-us.net> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Changes in v3: >>>>>>>> - Remove one if checking and use variable directly >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks good. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another comment/remark. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - pfreq = (u32 *)of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, >>>>>>>> - "clock-frequency", NULL); >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> - if (pfreq == NULL) { >>>>>>>> + rc = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "clock-frequency",&pfreq); >>>>>>>> + if (rc) { >>>>>>>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, >>>>>>>> "The watchdog clock frequency cannot be obtained\n"); >>>>>>>> no_timeout = true; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - tmptr = (u32 *)of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, >>>>>>>> - "xlnx,wdt-interval", NULL); >>>>>>>> - if (tmptr == NULL) { >>>>>>>> + rc = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "xlnx,wdt-interval", >>>>>>>> + &xdev->wdt_interval); >>>>>>>> + if (rc) { >>>>>>>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, >>>>>>>> "Parameter \"xlnx,wdt-interval\" not found\n"); >>>>>>>> no_timeout = true; >>>>>>>> - } else { >>>>>>>> - xdev->wdt_interval = *tmptr; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - tmptr = (u32 *)of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, >>>>>>>> - "xlnx,wdt-enable-once", NULL); >>>>>>>> - if (tmptr == NULL) { >>>>>>>> + rc = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "xlnx,wdt-enable-once", >>>>>>>> + &enable_once); >>>>>>>> + if (rc) >>>>>>>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, >>>>>>>> "Parameter \"xlnx,wdt-enable-once\" not found\n"); >>>>>>>> - watchdog_set_nowayout(xilinx_wdt_wdd, true); >>>>>>>> - } >>>>>>> All the above properties are optional. Is a warning really >>>>>>> warranted in this case ? I usually associate a warning with >>>>>>> something that is wrong, which is not the case here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would encourage you to drop those warnings, but that should be >>>>>>> a separate patch. >>>>>> I agree with Guenter: these are not really warnings. Seperate patch is thus welcome. >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> I support Michal intention, I think it is a warning because device tree blob must have the "xlnx,wdt-enable-once" property specified in order to allow the system to be sure of the real value of this property. In addition to, this warning can be helpful to detect a wrong device tree specification. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The dt documentation states that the properties are optional. >>>> >>>> Optional properties: >>>> - clock-frequency : Frequency of clock in Hz >>>> - xlnx,wdt-enable-once : 0 - Watchdog can be restarted >>>> 1 - Watchdog can be enabled just once >>>> - xlnx,wdt-interval : Watchdog timeout interval in 2^<val> clock cycles, >>>> <val> is integer from 8 to 31. >>>> >>>> This clearly conflicts with your statement. An optional property >>>> is just that, optional. If it warrants a warning, it must >>>> not be optional. If you claim that not providing the properties >>>> would be "wrong", why are they defined as optional ? >>> Hi Guenter >>> >>> I didn't know that these properties was classified as optional... >>> I think that they should not be, because all xilinx watchog devices (at least for microblaze processor) >>> have these properties defined in theirs MPD files and theirs values can be obtained during the >>> hardware specification to device tree conversion. >>>> What is your definition of "wrong" and "must have" ? >>> what I mean for "must have" is: if these properties can be obtained >>> for all xilinx watchdog devices they must be present in the device tree because they allows >>> the system (linux/user) to know exactly how a watchdog device is configured. >>> Because these properties always can be obtained from hardware design there is no >>> reason to leave them out from the device tree. This is why I consider that a device tree without >>> these properties should be considered as "wrong" device tree. >>>> How do you expect anyone to know that omitting those >>>> "optional" properties is by some definition "wrong" ? >>> I'm agree with you. >>> Maybe these properties shouldn't be optional. >>> For example suppose that "xlnx,wdt-enable-once" is missing in the device tree, >>> when a watchdog daemon ask for this property what is the obtained value ? >>> Independently of this value, why do not warn the user about this missing property >>> when it can always be in the device tree ? >>> >> >> Really, this line of argument doesn't make any sense to me. >> "xlnx,wdt-enable-once", for example, is a boolean and means >> that the watchdog, when enabled, can not be stopped. It defaults >> to false, and thus is inherently optional. Making it mandatory >> doesn't really add any value. >> > > If the device has been configured with wdt-enable-once=true > and the device tree doesn't have this property then a watchdog daemon > would see it as "false" because it is the default making the system to misbehave... > A warning during driver loading could help user to identify the problem. >
All this would give you is a false sense of safety. The property could just as well be there and be wrong (eg be configured as = <0> when it should be 1, or with a wrong frequency. Following your logic, every driver would need to warn about everything, just to be sure.
Guenter
| |