On 20/01/08 14:22 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote: > Hi, > > Jordan Crouse wrote: > > On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote: > >>>> Watchdog for the new API would be great :-) > >>> Coming soon. > > > > As promised, a watchdog driver for the Geode GX/LX processors is attached. > > I basically just ported the previous patch forward to 2.6.24. > > Great work! > > > > > I also have good news or bad news depending on your perspective. I wanted > > to test this against 2.6.24, and OLPC is stuck at an older kernel version, > > so I had to test this with coreboot (LinuxBIOS) on another Geode > > platform. Like all BIOSen execpt for the OLPC firmware, coreboot uses > > VSA (SMM handler) which consumes all the timers. > > > > So I used the magical MSR and surprise! - the timer tick hung. > > I compiled out the timer tick, and tested the watchdog timer instead, > > and it worked fine on timer 0. So I don't think the MFGPTs themselves > > have anything to do with this problem, but I do think it might be > > related to VSA and possibly interrupts too. I'm going to invoke the > > strong BIOS fu of our LinuxBIOS / BIOS expert Marc Jones, and see what > > he comes up with. > > > > I don't know how much of a hassle it would be for Andres to get a 2.6.24 > > kernel running on the OLPC to make sure that this isn't a regression > > in the timer tick code (I suspect it isn't a regression, but you never > > know). I also think that it would probably be in our best interest to > > default CONFIG_GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER to 'n' until we get this figured > > out. Since most BIOSen don't have timers available, that shouldn't affect > > too many people. > > > > So, anyway, enjoy the watchdog timer - I hope it meets everybody's > > expectations for the 2.6.25 kernel. > > Thanks a lot for this, it works great! (with CONFIG_GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER > not set). > However some minor issues: > Could the name of the /dev entry perhaps be changed from > "geode-watchdog" to "watchdog" instead? > I think all other watchdogs use "watchdog", and using two different > watchdogs in the same machine won't work anyway, because of the same > minor number, right?
Very much yes - complete oversight on my part. > As a second point my gcc (4.1.2) issues a warning: > > drivers/watchdog/geodewdt.c: In function ‘geodewdt_remove’: > drivers/watchdog/geodewdt.c:256: warning: control reaches end of > non-void function > > which I think is a valid one. Yes again. I'll refactor. Thanks for your comments. Jordan -- Jordan Crouse Systems Software Development Engineer Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
