From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933252AbcECMMM (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2016 08:12:12 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:58034 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933226AbcECMMI (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2016 08:12:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Watchdog: sbsa_gwdt: Enhance timeout range To: Pratyush Anand , fu.wei@linaro.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, wim@iguana.be Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck , open list References: <20da73bb9bdf27993514c1da80fead13dc92932d.1462262900.git.panand@redhat.com> From: Timur Tabi Message-ID: <57289594.3050801@codeaurora.org> Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:12:04 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20da73bb9bdf27993514c1da80fead13dc92932d.1462262900.git.panand@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pratyush Anand wrote: > + * Note: This watchdog timer has two stages. If action is 0, first stage is > + * determined by directly programming WCV and second by WOR. When first > + * timeout is reached, WS0 is triggered and WCV is reloaded with value in > + * WOR. WS0 interrupt will be ignored, then the second watch period starts; > + * when second timeout is reached, then WS1 is triggered, system resets. WCV > + * and WOR are programmed in such a way that total time corresponding to > + * WCV+WOR becomes equivalent to user programmed "timeout". > + * If action is 1, then we expect to call panic() at user programmed > + * "timeout". Therefore, we program both first and second stage using WCV > + * only. So I'm not sure I understand how this works yet, but there was an earlier version of Fu's driver that did something similar. It depended on being able to reprogram the hardware during the WS0 interrupt, and that was rejected by the community. How is what you are doing different? -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.