Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] watchdog: omap: several cleanups

Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-31T14:52:10Z

Hello Guenter,

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:04:28AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 07/31/2015 02:33 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:18:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 07:59:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>>On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:35:02AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>>>Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>>On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:22:57AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>>>>this is v2 of the series I sent on Friday. The changes to the patches
> >>>>>are documented in the respective mails. Thanks to Felipe Balbi and
> >>>>>Guenter Roeck for the feedback. I added Reviewed-by tags for Guenter who
> >>>>>didn't even saw these patches up to now (but who gave a carte blanche).
> >>>>>I assume that's ok and as intended, Guenter?
> >>>>Patches 1 to 5 got positive feedback, Wim, do you intend to take them
> >>>>for the next merge window?
> >>>gentle ping!
> >>>
> >>The patches have been in my watchdog-next branch for a while.
> >>I sent a pull request to Wim a minute ago, to help him decide.
> >
> >I didn't hear anything back since this pull request and in the meantime
> >other patches entered, with b2102eb36e7909c779e46f66595fda75aa219f4c
> >being conceptual similar to my patch 6. Also I think adding
> >omap_wdt_start directly after pm_runtime_put_sync is suboptimal?!
> >
>
> I see five of your patches upstream. The only one missing is patch #6,
> which should be addressed (at least for the most part) with the patch
> referenced above. Is there anything else missing ?
You're right. I cannot reconstruct which command convinced me before
that the whole series is missing. I guess PEBKAC. Thanks.

> Not sure I can follow your comment regarding omap_wdt_start() and pm_runtime_put_sync().
> Do you think the watchdog should be enabled earlier ? If so, feel free to submit
> a patch. You'd have to be careful with pm handling, though, since omap_wdt_start()
> calls pm_runtime_get_sync().
I admit I'm not fluent with that runtime pm stuff. But it looks wrong to
me to have:

omap_wdt_disable(wdev);

[...]

pm_runtime_put_sync(wdev->dev);

if (early_enable)
omap_wdt_start(&wdev->wdog);

And AFAIU pm_runtime_get and .._put are like references, so moving the
omap_wdt_start shouldn't hurt?! The only (positive!) effect is that the
call to pm_runtime_idle isn't done just to be reversed by
pm_runtime_resume as triggered by pm_runtime_get_sync.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |