On 02.10.2019 13:23, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 02/10/2019 07:35:26+0000, eugen.hris...@microchip.com wrote:
>> +static void wdt_write(struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt, u32 field, u32 val)
>> +{
>> +    /*
>> +     * WDT_CR and WDT_MR must not be modified within three slow clock
>> +     * periods following a restart of the watchdog performed by a write
>> +     * access in WDT_CR.
>> +     */
>> +    while (time_before(jiffies, wdt->last_ping + WDT_DELAY))
>> +            usleep_range(30, 125);
>> +    writel_relaxed(val, wdt->reg_base + field);
>> +    wdt->last_ping = jiffies;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void wdt_write_nosleep(struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt, u32 field, u32 val)
>> +{
>> +    if (time_before(jiffies, wdt->last_ping + WDT_DELAY))
>> +            usleep_range(123, 250);
> 
> So you have a _nosleep function that does sleep?
> 
>> +    writel_relaxed(val, wdt->reg_base + field);
>> +    wdt->last_ping = jiffies;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sam9x60_wdt_start(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
>> +{
>> +    struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
>> +
>> +    wdt->mr &= ~AT91_WDT_WDDIS;
>> +    wdt_write(wdt, AT91_WDT_MR, wdt->mr);
>> +    wdt_write_nosleep(wdt, AT91_WDT_IER, wdt->ir);
> 
> I don't think AT91_WDT_IER needs to be protected, you can probably write
> it directly. Also, you certainly need to do that before starting the
> watchdog to avoid race conditions.
> 
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sam9x60_wdt_stop(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
>> +{
>> +    struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
>> +
>> +    wdt->mr |= AT91_WDT_WDDIS;
>> +    wdt_write(wdt, AT91_WDT_MR, wdt->mr);
>> +    wdt_write_nosleep(wdt, AT91_WDT_IDR, wdt->ir);
>> +
> 
> I don't think AT91_WDT_IDR needs to be protected.
> 
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sam9x60_wdt_ping(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
>> +{
>> +    struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
>> +
>> +    wdt_write(wdt, AT91_WDT_CR, AT91_WDT_KEY | AT91_WDT_WDRSTT);
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sam9x60_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdd,
>> +                               unsigned int timeout)
>> +{
>> +    struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
>> +
>> +    wdt_write(wdt, AT91_WDT_WLR,
>> +              AT91_WDT_SET_COUNTER(WDT_SEC2TICKS(timeout)));
>> +
> 
> I don't think AT91_WDT_WLR needs to be protected.
> 
>> +    wdd->timeout = timeout;
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct watchdog_info sam9x60_wdt_info = {
>> +    .options = WDIOF_SETTIMEOUT | WDIOF_MAGICCLOSE | WDIOF_KEEPALIVEPING,
>> +    .identity = "Microchip SAM9X60 Watchdog",
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct watchdog_ops sam9x60_wdt_ops = {
>> +    .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> +    .start = sam9x60_wdt_start,
>> +    .stop = sam9x60_wdt_stop,
>> +    .ping = sam9x60_wdt_ping,
>> +    .set_timeout = sam9x60_wdt_set_timeout,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static irqreturn_t sam9x60_wdt_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> +{
>> +    struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt = platform_get_drvdata(dev_id);
>> +
>> +    if (wdt_read(wdt, AT91_WDT_ISR)) {
>> +            pr_crit("Microchip Watchdog Software Reset\n");
>> +            emergency_restart();
>> +            pr_crit("Reboot didn't succeed\n");
>> +    }
> 
> I'm not really convinced by the software restart use case but I guess it
> is to be able to shut down while still flushing data to the storage.
> This would not protect against kernel issues then.

Hi Alexandre,

That's correct. It is to do a software shutdown instead of hard reboot 
by hardware. It has it;s use cases, so I preserved the same level of 
functionality as in sama5d4_wdt

> 
>> +
>> +    return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int of_sam9x60_wdt_init(struct device_node *np, struct sam9x60_wdt 
>> *wdt)
>> +{
>> +    const char *tmp;
>> +
>> +    wdt->mr = AT91_WDT_WDDIS;
>> +
>> +    if (!of_property_read_string(np, "atmel,watchdog-type", &tmp) &&
>> +        !strcmp(tmp, "software"))
>> +            wdt->ir = AT91_WDT_PERINT;
>> +    else
>> +            wdt->mr |= AT91_WDT_PERIODRST;
>> +
>> +    if (of_property_read_bool(np, "atmel,idle-halt"))
>> +            wdt->mr |= AT91_WDT_WDIDLEHLT;
>> +
>> +    if (of_property_read_bool(np, "atmel,dbg-halt"))
>> +            wdt->mr |= AT91_WDT_WDDBGHLT;
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sam9x60_wdt_init(struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt)
>> +{
>> +    u32 reg;
>> +    /*
>> +     * When booting and resuming, the bootloader may have changed the
>> +     * watchdog configuration.
>> +     * If the watchdog is already running, we can safely update it.
>> +     * Else, we have to disable it properly.
>> +     */
>> +    if (wdt_enabled) {
>> +            wdt_write_nosleep(wdt, AT91_WDT_MR, wdt->mr);
>> +            wdt_write_nosleep(wdt, AT91_WDT_IER, wdt->ir);
>> +            wdt_write(wdt, AT91_WDT_WLR,
>> +                      
>> AT91_WDT_SET_COUNTER(WDT_SEC2TICKS(WDT_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT)));
>> +
>> +    } else {
>> +            reg = wdt_read(wdt, AT91_WDT_MR);
>> +            if (!(reg & AT91_WDT_WDDIS))
>> +                    wdt_write_nosleep(wdt, AT91_WDT_MR,
>> +                                      reg | AT91_WDT_WDDIS);
>> +    }
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sam9x60_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +    struct watchdog_device *wdd;
>> +    struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt;
>> +    struct resource *res;
>> +    void __iomem *regs;
>> +    u32 irq = 0;
>> +    int ret;
>> +
>> +    wdt = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*wdt), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +    if (!wdt)
>> +            return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +    wdd = &wdt->wdd;
>> +    wdd->timeout = WDT_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
>> +    wdd->info = &sam9x60_wdt_info;
>> +    wdd->ops = &sam9x60_wdt_ops;
>> +    wdd->min_timeout = MIN_WDT_TIMEOUT;
>> +    wdd->max_timeout = MAX_WDT_TIMEOUT;
>> +    wdt->last_ping = jiffies;
>> +
>> +    watchdog_set_drvdata(wdd, wdt);
>> +
>> +    res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> +    regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>> +    if (IS_ERR(regs))
>> +            return PTR_ERR(regs);
>> +
>> +    wdt->reg_base = regs;
>> +
>> +    irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(pdev->dev.of_node, 0);
>> +    if (!irq)
>> +            dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "failed to get IRQ from DT\n");
>> +
>> +    ret = of_sam9x60_wdt_init(pdev->dev.of_node, wdt);
>> +    if (ret)
>> +            return ret;
>> +
>> +    if ((wdt->ir & AT91_WDT_PERINT) && irq) {
>> +            ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, sam9x60_wdt_irq_handler,
>> +                                   IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_IRQPOLL |
>> +                                   IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, pdev->name, pdev);
>> +            if (ret) {
>> +                    dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>> +                            "cannot register interrupt handler\n");
>> +                    return ret;
>> +            }
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    watchdog_init_timeout(wdd, wdt_timeout, &pdev->dev);
>> +
>> +    ret = sam9x60_wdt_init(wdt);
>> +    if (ret)
>> +            return ret;
>> +
>> +    watchdog_set_nowayout(wdd, nowayout);
>> +
>> +    ret = watchdog_register_device(wdd);
>> +    if (ret) {
>> +            dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register watchdog device\n");
>> +            return ret;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    platform_set_drvdata(pdev, wdt);
>> +
>> +    dev_info(&pdev->dev, "initialized (timeout = %d sec, nowayout = %d)\n",
>> +             wdd->timeout, nowayout);
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sam9x60_wdt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +    struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> +
>> +    sam9x60_wdt_stop(&wdt->wdd);
>> +
>> +    watchdog_unregister_device(&wdt->wdd);
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id sam9x60_wdt_of_match[] = {
>> +    { .compatible = "microchip,sam9x60-wdt", },
>> +    { }
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sam9x60_wdt_of_match);
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> 
> Most of the logic has been copy/pasted from sama5d4_wdt.c and this
> already miss some improvement that have been made between the time you
> copied it and now.

I will fix accordingly. As I said in the commit message, sama5d4_wdt is 
used as a starting point so yes, all the functionality is the same, 
except the actual hardware interaction.

> 
> Are you sure both drivers shouldn't be merged? I feel like this will be a
> maintenance hell if we don't do that now.

It could be merged, but we should do so ?
Could have two compatibles, with platform data, selectable, and with 
different functions, that can be selected.. either this or that.
You think that's a better way to handle this new IP block ?
I would like to avoid having a big driver covering multiple different 
hardware pieces, but that's just my preference. I can rework this into a 
single driver if it's better that way.

Eugen

> 
>> +static int sam9x60_wdt_resume(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +    struct sam9x60_wdt *wdt = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * FIXME: writing MR also pings the watchdog which may not be desired.
>> +     * This should only be done when the registers are lost on suspend but
>> +     * there is no way to get this information right now.
>> +     */
>> +    sam9x60_wdt_init(wdt);
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(sam9x60_wdt_pm_ops, NULL,
>> +                     sam9x60_wdt_resume);
>> +
>> +static struct platform_driver sam9x60_wdt_driver = {
>> +    .probe          = sam9x60_wdt_probe,
>> +    .remove         = sam9x60_wdt_remove,
>> +    .driver         = {
>> +            .name   = "sam9x60_wdt",
>> +            .pm     = &sam9x60_wdt_pm_ops,
>> +            .of_match_table = sam9x60_wdt_of_match,
>> +    }
>> +};
>> +module_platform_driver(sam9x60_wdt_driver);
>> +
>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Eugen Hristev");
>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Microchip SAM9X60 Watchdog Timer driver");
>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>> -- 
>> 2.7.4
>>
> 

Reply via email to