From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>
To: "Varadarajan, Charulatha" <charu@ti.com>
Cc: "tony@atomide.com" <tony@atomide.com>,
"wim@iguana.be" <wim@iguana.be>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"paul@pwsan.com" <paul@pwsan.com>,
"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@ti.com>,
"Nayak, Rajendra" <rnayak@ti.com>,
"Basak, Partha" <p-basak2@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/6] OMAP: WDT: Implement WDT in hwmod way
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:43:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y6ak1rp6.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EAF47CD23C76F840A9E7FCE10091EFAB030CD02BA7@dbde02.ent.ti.com> (Charulatha Varadarajan's message of "Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:16:41 +0530")
"Varadarajan, Charulatha" <charu@ti.com> writes:
[...]
>>
>> Instead, I would rather have a small piece of code in omap_init_wdt()
>> which disarms the watchdog so we don't have any assumptions about
>> bootloader behavior.
>>
>> The question remains whether this disarm should be
>> #ifndef CONFIG_OMAP_WATCHDOG or if it should happen all the time. In
>> case the watchdog is a module, it's probe may not happen within the
>> timeout period and they system may reboot also, so I lean towards
>> disarming the watchdog unconditionally.
>
> Agreed. But this shall be handled in mach-omap2/devices.c by directly
> accessing the watchdog registers and disabling it, as the watchdog driver
> would not be available by this time.
Correct.
> If this okay, I would send a separate patch on top my hwmod series to
> handle this.
Yes please.
Thanks,
Kevin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: khilman@deeprootsystems.com (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v8 0/6] OMAP: WDT: Implement WDT in hwmod way
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:43:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y6ak1rp6.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EAF47CD23C76F840A9E7FCE10091EFAB030CD02BA7@dbde02.ent.ti.com> (Charulatha Varadarajan's message of "Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:16:41 +0530")
"Varadarajan, Charulatha" <charu@ti.com> writes:
[...]
>>
>> Instead, I would rather have a small piece of code in omap_init_wdt()
>> which disarms the watchdog so we don't have any assumptions about
>> bootloader behavior.
>>
>> The question remains whether this disarm should be
>> #ifndef CONFIG_OMAP_WATCHDOG or if it should happen all the time. In
>> case the watchdog is a module, it's probe may not happen within the
>> timeout period and they system may reboot also, so I lean towards
>> disarming the watchdog unconditionally.
>
> Agreed. But this shall be handled in mach-omap2/devices.c by directly
> accessing the watchdog registers and disabling it, as the watchdog driver
> would not be available by this time.
Correct.
> If this okay, I would send a separate patch on top my hwmod series to
> handle this.
Yes please.
Thanks,
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-29 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-23 14:32 [PATCH v8 0/6] OMAP: WDT: Implement WDT in hwmod way Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` [PATCH v8 1/6] OMAP3: hwmod data: Add watchdog timer Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` [PATCH v8 2/6] OMAP2420: " Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` [PATCH v8 3/6] OMAP2430: " Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 15:25 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-23 15:25 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-23 17:07 ` Paul Walmsley
2010-09-23 17:07 ` Paul Walmsley
2010-09-23 14:32 ` [PATCH v8 4/6] OMAP4: " Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` [PATCH v8 5/6] OMAP: WDT: Split OMAP1 and OMAP2PLUS device registration Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` [PATCH v8 6/6] OMAP: WDT: Use PM runtime APIs instead of clk FW APIs Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-23 14:32 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-29 1:05 ` [PATCH v8 0/6] OMAP: WDT: Implement WDT in hwmod way Kevin Hilman
2010-09-29 1:05 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-09-29 1:05 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-09-29 13:14 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-29 13:14 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-29 14:37 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-09-29 14:37 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-09-29 14:46 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-29 14:46 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2010-09-29 15:43 ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2010-09-29 15:43 ` Kevin Hilman
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=87y6ak1rp6.fsf@deeprootsystems.com \
--to=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=b-cousson@ti.com \
--cc=charu@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p-basak2@ti.com \
--cc=paul@pwsan.com \
--cc=rnayak@ti.com \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/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.