On May 12, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:55:16PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
I don't know the IP block name... what is it for the 83xx/86xx
watchdogs?
My point was that we developers should just pick a name and run
with it.
That'
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:55:16PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
>> I don't know the IP block name... what is it for the 83xx/86xx
>> watchdogs?
>
> My point was that we developers should just pick a name and run with it.
> That's where the name "Elo" came from. None of of
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
I don't know the IP block name... what is it for the 83xx/86xx
watchdogs?
My point was that we developers should just pick a name and run with it.
That's where the name "Elo" came from. None of official Freescale
documentation calls the DMA controller on 85xx parts "
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:42:41PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
>> They're completely different watchdogs...
>
> But the drivers both generally do the same thing, just with different
> timers?
All the watchdogs do the same thing, generally...
> I think the best option is
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
They're completely different watchdogs...
But the drivers both generally do the same thing, just with different
timers?
I think the best option is to just pick a name for the IP block that
mpc83xx_wdt.c supports and use that name for the driver as well.
__
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:20:59PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:01:06PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
>>> Scott Wood wrote:
>>>
It avoids confusion. I vote for renaming.
>>> Me too. How about fsl_wdt.c?
>>
>> fsl_wdt sounds too generic, I think i
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:01:06PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
It avoids confusion. I vote for renaming.
Me too. How about fsl_wdt.c?
fsl_wdt sounds too generic, I think it would conflict with
at least booke_wdt.c.. no?
Yeah, that makes sense. What
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:01:06PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> It avoids confusion. I vote for renaming.
>
> Me too. How about fsl_wdt.c?
fsl_wdt sounds too generic, I think it would conflict with
at least booke_wdt.c.. no?
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
irc:
Scott Wood wrote:
It avoids confusion. I vote for renaming.
Me too. How about fsl_wdt.c?
Or we could come up with a name for that particular WDT device, like we
did with the 85xx DMA controller.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 02:24:20PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
we should rename it to mpc8xxx_wdt.c
I don't see much sense in renaming the files just because the driver
now supports another line of processors... Do you really want the rename?
Please repeat if so.
It avoi
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 02:24:20PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
>> On MPC86xx the watchdog could be enabled only at power-on-reset, and
>> could not be disabled afterwards. We must ping the watchdog from the
>> kernel until the userspace handles
Hi Kumar,
>> Also move the probe code into subsys_initcall, because we want start
>> pinging the watchdog ASAP, and misc devices are available in
>> subsys_initcall.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> ---
>> drivers/watchdog/Kconfig |4 +-
>> drivers/watchdog/mpc8
On May 12, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On MPC86xx the watchdog could be enabled only at power-on-reset, and
could not be disabled afterwards. We must ping the watchdog from the
kernel until the userspace handles it.
MPC83xx CPUs are only differ in a way that watchdog could be disa
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
+ enabled = in_be32(&wd_base->swcrr) & SWCRR_SWEN;
+#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_86xx
+ if (!enabled) {
+ dev_info(&dev->dev, "could not be enabled by software\n");
+ ret = -ENOSYS;
+ goto err_unmap;
+ }
+#endif
What happen
On MPC86xx the watchdog could be enabled only at power-on-reset, and
could not be disabled afterwards. We must ping the watchdog from the
kernel until the userspace handles it.
MPC83xx CPUs are only differ in a way that watchdog could be disabled
once, but after it was enabled via software it beco
15 matches
Mail list logo
