Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 23 Feb 2014 11:00:14 -0800 | From | Alejandro Cabrera <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] watchdog: xilinx: Use of_property_read_u32 |
| |
On 23/2/2014 6:43 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 02/23/2014 08:25 AM, Alejandro Cabrera wrote: >> On 22/2/2014 7:44 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> 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. >> These issues "cannot" be detected but the missing properties yes. >>> Following your logic, every driver >>> would need to warn about everything, just to be sure. >> Every driver should warn about anything that it considers weird and >> let the user to decide if it matters or not. >> I think that an example of weird could be the lack of an expected >> property. >> > > I don't think it makes sense to continue this discussion. > We have fundamental differences in opinion which we won't > resolve by repeating our arguments over and over. > > Wim, I'll let you decide how to handle this. My recommendation > is to request the author to decide if the properties are optional > or not before accepting this patch set. Either the properties > are optional, and there should be no warnings, or they are > mandatory and the driver should bail out if they are missing. > I'm totally agreed with you :)
50 Aniversario de la Cujae. Inaugurada por Fidel el 2 de diciembre de 1964 http://cujae.edu.cu
|  |