Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Al Stone wrote: The issue for me in that case is that the SBSA requires a two stage timeout, > >Hmm - really ? This makes me want to step back a bit and re-read the specification >to understand where it says that, and what the reasoning might be for such a >requirement. As far as I can tell,

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/12/2015 05:25 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/12/2015 04:06 PM, Al Stone wrote: >> On 11/05/2015 09:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: > Fu Wei wrote: >> >> Did you really

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Sorry for the delayed response...I've got some difficult family things to work on IRL that are taking priority... On 11/12/2015 05:23 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/12/2015 06:06 PM, Al Stone wrote: >> If it is a NAK, that's fine, but I also want to be sure I understand what the >> objections are.

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Al Stone wrote: The issue for me in that case is that the SBSA requires a two stage timeout, > >Hmm - really ? This makes me want to step back a bit and re-read the specification >to understand where it says that, and what the reasoning might be for such a >requirement. As far as I can tell,

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Sorry for the delayed response...I've got some difficult family things to work on IRL that are taking priority... On 11/12/2015 05:23 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/12/2015 06:06 PM, Al Stone wrote: >> If it is a NAK, that's fine, but I also want to be sure I understand what the >> objections are.

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/12/2015 05:25 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/12/2015 04:06 PM, Al Stone wrote: >> On 11/05/2015 09:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: > Fu Wei wrote: >>

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/12/2015 04:06 PM, Al Stone wrote: On 11/05/2015 09:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: Fu Wei wrote: Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again and again: SBSA 2.3

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/12/2015 06:06 PM, Al Stone wrote: If it is a NAK, that's fine, but I also want to be sure I understand what the objections are. Based on my understanding of the discussion so far over the multiple versions, I think the primary objection is that the use of pretimeout makes this driver too

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/05/2015 09:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: >> Hi Timur, >> >> On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: >>> Fu Wei wrote: Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again and again: SBSA 2.3 Page 23 :

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/12/2015 06:06 PM, Al Stone wrote: If it is a NAK, that's fine, but I also want to be sure I understand what the objections are. Based on my understanding of the discussion so far over the multiple versions, I think the primary objection is that the use of pretimeout makes this driver too

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/05/2015 09:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: >> Hi Timur, >> >> On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: >>> Fu Wei wrote: Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again and again:

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/12/2015 04:06 PM, Al Stone wrote: On 11/05/2015 09:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: Fu Wei wrote: Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Timur On 6 November 2015 at 01:59, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/05/2015 10:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >> >> Ultimately, you'll have to decide if you want a simple driver accepted, or >> a complex driver hanging in the review queue forever. > > > Please note that I did post such a driver back

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/05/2015 10:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: Ultimately, you'll have to decide if you want a simple driver accepted, or a complex driver hanging in the review queue forever. Please note that I did post such a driver back in May:

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Guenter, Great thanks for that you are still reviewing this patchset, thanks for your patient. On 6 November 2015 at 00:41, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: >> >> Hi Timur, >> >> On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: >>> >>> Fu Wei wrote:

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: Fu Wei wrote: Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again and again: SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : If a larger watch period is required then the compare value can be programmed

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: > Fu Wei wrote: >> >> Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again >> and again: >> >> SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : >> If a larger watch period is required then the compare value can be >> programmed directly into the

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Fu Wei wrote: Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again and again: SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : If a larger watch period is required then the compare value can be programmed directly into the compare value register. Well, okay. Sorry, I should have read what you pasted

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:08, Timur Tabi wrote: > Fu Wei wrote: >> >> SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : >> Note: the watchdog offset register is 32 bits wide. This gives a >> maximum watch period of around 10s at a system >> counter frequency of 400MHz. If a larger watch period is required then >> the

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Fu Wei wrote: SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : Note: the watchdog offset register is 32 bits wide. This gives a maximum watch period of around 10s at a system counter frequency of 400MHz. If a larger watch period is required then the compare value can be programmed directly into the compare value register.

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Timur On 5 November 2015 at 21:47, Timur Tabi wrote: > Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >> I would feel much more comfortable if the driver would just use the >> standard >> watchdog timeout and live with (worst case) 20 seconds timeout for now. > > > Actually, I'm wondering where the 20 seconds comes

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Guenter Roeck wrote: I would feel much more comfortable if the driver would just use the standard watchdog timeout and live with (worst case) 20 seconds timeout for now. Actually, I'm wondering where the 20 seconds comes from. When I load my driver on our hardware, it calculates a maximum

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Fu Wei wrote: (1)It is not new. pre-timeout concept has been used by two drivers before this driver. and this concept has been in kernel documentation. It's "new" in that it's a new infrastructure. The private API of two other drivers doesn't count. (1) if we don't, for this two stages

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Guenter, Great thanks for your feedback! On 5 November 2015 at 13:13, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/04/2015 05:59 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, wrote: >>> >>> +static irqreturn_t sbsa_gwdt_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) >>> +{ >>> + struct sbsa_gwdt

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:08, Timur Tabi wrote: > Fu Wei wrote: >> >> SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : >> Note: the watchdog offset register is 32 bits wide. This gives a >> maximum watch period of around 10s at a system >> counter frequency of 400MHz. If a larger watch period

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Fu Wei wrote: Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again and again: SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : If a larger watch period is required then the compare value can be programmed directly into the compare value register. Well, okay. Sorry, I should have read what you pasted

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Guenter, Great thanks for your feedback! On 5 November 2015 at 13:13, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/04/2015 05:59 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, wrote: >>> >>> +static irqreturn_t sbsa_gwdt_interrupt(int irq, void

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Guenter, Great thanks for that you are still reviewing this patchset, thanks for your patient. On 6 November 2015 at 00:41, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: >> >> Hi Timur, >> >> On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/05/2015 07:00 AM, Fu Wei wrote: Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: Fu Wei wrote: Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again and again: SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : If a larger watch period is required then the compare

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Timur On 6 November 2015 at 01:59, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/05/2015 10:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >> >> Ultimately, you'll have to decide if you want a simple driver accepted, or >> a complex driver hanging in the review queue forever. > > > Please note that I did

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/05/2015 10:41 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: Ultimately, you'll have to decide if you want a simple driver accepted, or a complex driver hanging in the review queue forever. Please note that I did post such a driver back in May:

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Timur, On 5 November 2015 at 22:40, Timur Tabi wrote: > Fu Wei wrote: >> >> Did you really read the "Note" above OK, let me paste it again >> and again: >> >> SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : >> If a larger watch period is required then the compare value can be >> programmed

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Fu Wei wrote: (1)It is not new. pre-timeout concept has been used by two drivers before this driver. and this concept has been in kernel documentation. It's "new" in that it's a new infrastructure. The private API of two other drivers doesn't count. (1) if we don't, for this two stages

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Hi Timur On 5 November 2015 at 21:47, Timur Tabi wrote: > Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >> I would feel much more comfortable if the driver would just use the >> standard >> watchdog timeout and live with (worst case) 20 seconds timeout for now. > > > Actually, I'm wondering

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Guenter Roeck wrote: I would feel much more comfortable if the driver would just use the standard watchdog timeout and live with (worst case) 20 seconds timeout for now. Actually, I'm wondering where the 20 seconds comes from. When I load my driver on our hardware, it calculates a maximum

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

Fu Wei wrote: SBSA 2.3 Page 23 : Note: the watchdog offset register is 32 bits wide. This gives a maximum watch period of around 10s at a system counter frequency of 400MHz. If a larger watch period is required then the compare value can be programmed directly into the compare value register.

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/04/2015 05:59 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, wrote: +static irqreturn_t sbsa_gwdt_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) +{ + struct sbsa_gwdt *gwdt = (struct sbsa_gwdt *)dev_id; + struct watchdog_device *wdd = >wdd; + + /* We don't use pretimeout,

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, wrote: > +static irqreturn_t sbsa_gwdt_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) > +{ > + struct sbsa_gwdt *gwdt = (struct sbsa_gwdt *)dev_id; > + struct watchdog_device *wdd = >wdd; > + > + /* We don't use pretimeout, trigger WS1 now */ > + if

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, wrote: > +static irqreturn_t sbsa_gwdt_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) > +{ > + struct sbsa_gwdt *gwdt = (struct sbsa_gwdt *)dev_id; > + struct watchdog_device *wdd = >wdd; > + > + /* We don't use pretimeout, trigger WS1 now

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 5/5] Watchdog: introduce ARM SBSA watchdog driver

On 11/04/2015 05:59 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, wrote: +static irqreturn_t sbsa_gwdt_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) +{ + struct sbsa_gwdt *gwdt = (struct sbsa_gwdt *)dev_id; + struct watchdog_device *wdd = >wdd; + + /* We