> -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Kagstrom [mailto:simon.kagst...@netinsight.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:14 PM > To: Prafulla Wadaskar > Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de > Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm:kirkwood: Add hardware watchdog > support for Marvell Kirkwood boards > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:34:10 -0700 > Prafulla Wadaskar <prafu...@marvell.com> wrote: > > > > #define CNTMR_VAL_REG(tmrnum) > > > &kwtmr_regs->tmr[tmrnum].val > > > > > > and used for the regular timer support. I'm not sure I > like that, but > > > at least the file should be internally consistent. > > > > You can update the structure to use WDT timer in the same > way as other timers, > > there is no sense putting additional names in structure. > > But I'm not - the WDT timer is used in the same way as the > other timer.
So the kwtmr_register structure clean up can be a separate patch. > The only difference is the added WATCHDOG_TMR define which specifies > which Kirkwood timer to use as a watchdog. Ack > > > > But then it's unconditionally turned on as soon as the first > > > WATCHDOG_RESET() is called, which might not be what you want. > > > > > > In the long run, we should probably add command line support for > > > enabling the watchdog (some might want to do it just > before starting > > > Linux for example). > > > > You can even call WATCHDOG_RESET() from wherever from your > code to enable it > > Sure, but WATCHDOG_RESET() will be called anyway (and probably before > my code), so it will be enabled anyhow in that case. My point is that > sometimes you don't want the watchdog to get started directly, hence > the function to enable it. That is also valid point, This will be the generic need for all architectures. Lets introduce WATCHDOG_INIT() as new generic interface. What do you think? Regards.. Prafulla . . > > // Simon > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
