From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To: Ken Sloat <KSloat@aampglobal.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
"nicolas.ferre@microchip.com" <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
"ludovic.desroches@microchip.com"
<ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>,
"wim@linux-watchdog.org" <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] watchdog: atmel: atmel-sama5d4-wdt: Disable watchdog on system suspend
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 20:08:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190614180826.GD3369@piout.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR07MB4115E99D065FD9BEA4C43BB5ADEE0@BL0PR07MB4115.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
On 14/06/2019 17:53:01+0000, Ken Sloat wrote:
> > The call to sama5d4_wdt_init() above now explicitly stops the watchdog
> > even if we want to (re)start it. I think this would be better handled with an
> > else case here
> >
> > else
> > sama5d4_wdt_stop(&wdt->wdd);
> >
>
> So we completely remove the sama5d4_wdt_init() call then correct?
>
> To leave the code as it behaves today with the addition
> of wdt stop/start, shouldn't we call init in the else instead?
>
> if (watchdog_active(&wdt->wdd))
> sama5d4_wdt_start(&wdt->wdd);
> else
> sama5d4_wdt_init();
>
> I guess I don't really understand the purpose of having the init statement in resume
> in the first place. I agree, calling this first does end up essentially resetting the wdt
> it will start again if it was running before, but the count will be reset.
>
There is a nice comment explaining why ;)
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To: Ken Sloat <KSloat@aampglobal.com>
Cc: "linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"ludovic.desroches@microchip.com"
<ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
"wim@linux-watchdog.org" <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] watchdog: atmel: atmel-sama5d4-wdt: Disable watchdog on system suspend
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 20:08:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190614180826.GD3369@piout.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR07MB4115E99D065FD9BEA4C43BB5ADEE0@BL0PR07MB4115.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
On 14/06/2019 17:53:01+0000, Ken Sloat wrote:
> > The call to sama5d4_wdt_init() above now explicitly stops the watchdog
> > even if we want to (re)start it. I think this would be better handled with an
> > else case here
> >
> > else
> > sama5d4_wdt_stop(&wdt->wdd);
> >
>
> So we completely remove the sama5d4_wdt_init() call then correct?
>
> To leave the code as it behaves today with the addition
> of wdt stop/start, shouldn't we call init in the else instead?
>
> if (watchdog_active(&wdt->wdd))
> sama5d4_wdt_start(&wdt->wdd);
> else
> sama5d4_wdt_init();
>
> I guess I don't really understand the purpose of having the init statement in resume
> in the first place. I agree, calling this first does end up essentially resetting the wdt
> it will start again if it was running before, but the count will be reset.
>
There is a nice comment explaining why ;)
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-14 18:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-14 12:53 [PATCH v2 1/1] watchdog: atmel: atmel-sama5d4-wdt: Disable watchdog on system suspend Ken Sloat
2019-06-14 12:53 ` Ken Sloat
2019-06-14 16:46 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-06-14 16:46 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-06-14 17:53 ` Ken Sloat
2019-06-14 17:53 ` Ken Sloat
2019-06-14 18:08 ` Alexandre Belloni [this message]
2019-06-14 18:08 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-06-14 18:43 ` Ken Sloat
2019-06-14 18:43 ` Ken Sloat
2019-06-14 20:33 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-06-14 20:33 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-06-14 20:45 ` Ken Sloat
2019-06-14 20:45 ` Ken Sloat
2019-06-15 14:22 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-06-15 14:22 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-06-20 8:33 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-06-20 8:33 ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-07-02 13:40 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-07-02 13:40 ` Guenter Roeck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190614180826.GD3369@piout.net \
--to=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=KSloat@aampglobal.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=ludovic.desroches@microchip.com \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@microchip.com \
--cc=wim@linux-watchdog.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.