linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>
Cc: Linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix book E watchdog to take WDIOC_SETTIMEOUT arg in seconds
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:08:41 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090827120841.GA25303@zod.rchland.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090827111458.GB29382@infomag.iguana.be>

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 01:14:58PM +0200, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>
>> The WDIOC_SETTIMEOUT argument is supposed to be a "seconds" value.
>> However, the book E wdt currently treats it as a "period" which is
>> interpreted in a board-specific way.
>> 
>> This patch allows the user to pass in a "seconds" value and the driver
>> will set the smallest timeout that is at least as large as specified
>> by the user.  It's been tested on e500 hardware and works as
>> expected.
>> 
>> The patch only modifies the CONFIG_FSL_BOOKE case, the CONFIG_4xx case
>> is left unmodified as I don't have any hardware to test it on.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>
>
>Added with some small changes to keep checkpatch happy. (removed trailing spaces + changed sizeof(struct watchdog_info) to sizeof(ident) and changed some spaces in tabs).
>
>Now we only need someone that can look at the CONFIG_4xx cases still :-)

It seems the FSL watchdog is much more flexible than the one found in 4xx
cores.  On 4xx, you basically have 4 static choices that represent specific
times determined by the clock frequency.  I'm concerned that the lack of
granularity here will result in less than desirable behavior.

For example, with a 400MHz clock you would get choices of roughly:

5.2 ms
83.9 ms
1.34 s
21.47 s

Personally, I consider the first two options basically unusable.  Considering
the second two, if a user were to say "Set the timeout for 2 seconds" they
would then get a timeout of 21 seconds with the framework Chris' patch has
set up.  That doesn't really seem to be ideal to me.

josh

  reply	other threads:[~2009-08-27 12:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-08-12 18:02 [PATCH] fix book E watchdog to take WDIOC_SETTIMEOUT arg in seconds Chris Friesen
2009-08-27 11:14 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2009-08-27 12:08   ` Josh Boyer [this message]
2009-08-27 20:27     ` Wim Van Sebroeck

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=20090827120841.GA25303@zod.rchland.ibm.com \
    --to=jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).