From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 11:06:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: sp805: set WDOG_HW_RUNNING when appropriate
In-Reply-To: <76d47e02-7a5f-3fc2-3905-cd4aa03ac69c@arm.com>
References: <1527014840-21236-1-git-send-email-ray.jui@broadcom.com>
 <1527014840-21236-4-git-send-email-ray.jui@broadcom.com>
 <20180522205457.GA16363@roeck-us.net>
 <0d92b9e9-a3d1-6e91-8371-b5ed3a83e399@broadcom.com>
 <00c121ea-d197-93b8-2f56-bcca963f70fb@broadcom.com>
 <76d47e02-7a5f-3fc2-3905-cd4aa03ac69c@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20180523180639.GA27570@roeck-us.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:48:10PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 23/05/18 08:52, Scott Branden wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 18-05-22 04:24 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
> >>Hi Guenter,
> >>
> >>On 5/22/2018 1:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>>On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:47:18AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> >>>>If the watchdog hardware is already enabled during the boot process,
> >>>>when the Linux watchdog driver loads, it should reset the watchdog and
> >>>>tell the watchdog framework. As a result, ping can be generated from
> >>>>the watchdog framework, until the userspace watchdog daemon takes over
> >>>>control
> >>>>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>
> >>>>Reviewed-by: Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@broadcom.com>
> >>>>Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
> >>>>---
> >>>>? drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>? 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>>diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
> >>>>b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
> >>>>index 1484609..408ffbe 100644
> >>>>--- a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
> >>>>+++ b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
> >>>>@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> >>>>????? /* control register masks */
> >>>>????? #define??? INT_ENABLE??? (1 << 0)
> >>>>????? #define??? RESET_ENABLE??? (1 << 1)
> >>>>+??? #define??? ENABLE_MASK??? (INT_ENABLE | RESET_ENABLE)
> >>>>? #define WDTINTCLR??????? 0x00C
> >>>>? #define WDTRIS??????????? 0x010
> >>>>? #define WDTMIS??????????? 0x014
> >>>>@@ -74,6 +75,18 @@ module_param(nowayout, bool, 0);
> >>>>? MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout,
> >>>>????????? "Set to 1 to keep watchdog running after device release");
> >>>>? +/* returns true if wdt is running; otherwise returns false */
> >>>>+static bool wdt_is_running(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+??? struct sp805_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
> >>>>+
> >>>>+??? if ((readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK) ==
> >>>>+??????? ENABLE_MASK)
> >>>>+??????? return true;
> >>>>+??? else
> >>>>+??????? return false;
> >>>
> >>>????return !!(readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK));
> >>>
> >>
> >>Note ENABLE_MASK contains two bits (INT_ENABLE and RESET_ENABLE);
> >>therefore, a simple !!(expression) would not work? That is, the masked
> >>result needs to be compared against the mask again to ensure both bits
> >>are set, right?
> >Ray - your original code looks correct to me.? Easier to read and less
> >prone to errors as shown in the attempted translation to a single
> >statement.
> 
> 	if (<boolean condition>)
> 		return true;
> 	else
> 		return false;
> 
> still looks really dumb, though, and IMO is actually harder to read than
> just "return <boolean condition>;" because it forces you to stop and
> double-check that the logic is, in fact, only doing the obvious thing.
> 

Yes, and I won't accept it, sorry.

Guenter

> Robin.
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. No thanks for making me remember the mind-boggling horror of briefly
> maintaining part of this legacy codebase... :P
> 
> $ grep -r '? true : false' --include=*.cpp . | wc -l
> 951