On Thursday, March 02, 2017, Guenter Roeck worte:
> > > The above two lines are unnecessary.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > #I'll assume you mean take out just the last sentence (2 lines), not
> > both sentences (all 3 lines).
> >
> The two empty lines.
Ooops! That makes more sense.
> > > > + rate = clk_get_rate(priv->clk);
> > > > + if (!rate)
> > > > + return -ENOENT;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Assume slowest clock rate possible (CKS=7) */
> > > > + rate /= 16384;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > The rate check should probably be here to avoid situations where
> > > rate < 16384.
> >
> > Do I need that if it's technically not possible to have a 'rate' less
> than 25MHz?
> >
> > These watchdogs HW are always feed directly from the peripheral clock
> > and there is no such thing as a 16kHz peripheral block an any Renesas
> SoC.
> >
> Following that line of argument, can clk_get_rate() ever return 0 ?
In the DT binding, it says that a clock source is required to be present.
If the user leaves out the "clocks =", then devm_clk_get will fail.
If the user puts in some crazy value for "clocks = ", then maybe you could get
0 (assuming there is a valid clock node they made by themselves somewhere that
runs at 0Hz).
But in that extreme case, I think they deserve to have it crash and burn because
who knows what they are doing.
> > > > + priv->wdev.max_hw_heartbeat_ms = (1000 * U8_MAX)/rate;
> > >
> > > space before and after /
> >
> > OK.
> > #Funny because checkpatch.pl said it didn't like a space on one side
> > but not the other, so I choose no spaces and it was happy. I'm way
> > below 80 characters for that line so it doesn't matter to me.
> >
>
> That would be a bug in checkpatch. coding style, chapter 3.1, still
> applies.
> Or at least I hope so.
OK. Thank you for the clarification.
> > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
>
> Also just
> return ret;
OK.
> > > > +static int rza_wdt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> > > > + struct rza_wdt *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > +
> > > > + watchdog_unregister_device(&priv->wdev);
> > > > + iounmap(priv->base);
> > >
> > > iounmap is unnecessary (and wrong).
> >
> > Anything mapped with devm_ioremap_resource() automatically gets
> > unmapped when the drive gets unloaded?
>
> That is the point of devm_ functions. It also means that you won't need a
> remove function if you also use devm_watchdog_register_device().
OK.
I see that only 1 driver is using devm_watchdog_register_device (wdat_wdt.c), so
maybe that is a new method.
Thank you,
Chris
