lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/2] watchdog: Add Renesas RZ/N1 Watchdog driver
On 3/30/22 23:08, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:08:29PM +0200, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/rzn1_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/rzn1_wdt.c
> [...]
>> +/*
>> + * Renesas RZ/N1 Watchdog timer.
>> + * This is a 12-bit timer driver from a (62.5/16384) MHz clock. It can't even
>> + * cope with 2 seconds.
>> + *
>> + * Copyright 2018 Renesas Electronics Europe Ltd.
>
> s/2018/2022/ ?
>
>> +#define RZN1_WDT_RETRIGGER 0x0
>> +#define RZN1_WDT_RETRIGGER_RELOAD_VAL 0
>> +#define RZN1_WDT_RETRIGGER_RELOAD_VAL_MASK 0xfff
>> +#define RZN1_WDT_RETRIGGER_PRESCALE BIT(12)
>> +#define RZN1_WDT_RETRIGGER_ENABLE BIT(13)
>> +#define RZN1_WDT_RETRIGGER_WDSI (0x2 << 14)
>
> Do RZN1_WDT_RETRIGGER_RELOAD_VAL and RZN1_WDT_RETRIGGER_WDSI get 1 more tab
> indent intentionally?
>

That only looks like it due to the "+" at the beginning of the line.
If you look at the actual code the alignment is ok.

>> +static const struct watchdog_device rzn1_wdt = {
>> + .info = &rzn1_wdt_info,
>> + .ops = &rzn1_wdt_ops,
>> + .status = WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT_INIT_STATUS,
>> +};
> [...]
>> +static int rzn1_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
> [...]
>> + wdt->wdt = rzn1_wdt;
>
> Does it really need to copy the memory? For example,
>
> 1. Use the memory in `wdt` directly and fill the `wdd`.
>
> struct watchdog_device *wdd = &wdt->wdt;
> wdd->info = &rzn1_wdt_info;
> wdd->ops = &rzn1_wdt_ops;
> ...
>
> 2. Use drvdata instead of container_of().
>
> Use watchdog_set_drvdata() in _probe and watchdog_get_drvdata() in the
> watchdog ops to get struct rzn1_watchdog.
>
That would indeed be preferred. The static data structure isn't really useful.

>> +static const struct of_device_id rzn1_wdt_match[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "renesas,rzn1-wdt" },
>> + {},
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rzn1_wdt_match);
>
> Doesn't it need to guard by CONFIG_OF?
>
Only if of_match_ptr() is used below, and then I'd prefer __maybe_unused

>> +static struct platform_driver rzn1_wdt_driver = {
>> + .probe = rzn1_wdt_probe,
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
>> + .of_match_table = rzn1_wdt_match,
>
> Does it makes more sense to use of_match_ptr()?
>

Usually we leave that up to driver authors.

>> + },
>> +};
>> +
>> +module_platform_driver(rzn1_wdt_driver);
>
> To make it look like a whole thing, I prefer to remove the extra blank line
> in between struct platform_driver and module_platform_driver().

We usually leave that up to driver authors. Many watchdog driver leave
an empty line, so it is ok (as long as there are no two empty lines).

Thanks,
Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-01 04:28    [W:0.074 / U:0.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site