On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:16:29AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Jason Gunthorpe > <jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com> wrote: > > Move the body of the PIT exception out of line to make room. > > What boards did you test this on? What driver are you using for the > watchdog?
Tested on a 405F6 core (Xilinx's variant), the board is custom, and the control for the watchdog SPRs was bundled into a watchdog driver for the board's watchdog controller. > > /* 0x1010 - Fixed Interval Timer (FIT) Exception > > */ > > - STND_EXCEPTION(0x1010, FITException, unknown_exception) > > +// STND_EXCEPTION(0x1010, FITException, unknown_exception) > > Please just move the #endif for the #if 0 up instead of putting a C++ > style comment here. Sure > > /* 0x1020 - Watchdog Timer (WDT) Exception > > */ > > -#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE_WDT > > CRITICAL_EXCEPTION(0x1020, WDTException, WatchdogException) > > -#else > > - CRITICAL_EXCEPTION(0x1020, WDTException, unknown_exception) > > -#endif > > -#endif > > Please leave this wrapped in CONFIG_BOOKE_WDT. I don't agree with > unconditionally enabling this for every 405 chip out there. What are you concerned with? If some core varient does not put a watchdog there, then you still get a panic from the default watchdog exception handler.. > > -#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE_WDT > > +#if defined(CONFIG_BOOKE_WDT) | defined(CONFIG_40x) > > Pretty sure you meant || here? Thought if you just enable the existing > config option, I don't think you'd need to edit this file at all. Yes, I didn't want to use BOOKE_WDT because I have not tested that driver, nor do I want that driver included in my kernel.. I think the watchdog driver in use should be orthogonal to having the exception wired in? Jason _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
