Dear Rasmus,
In message <86e1c45a-fc23-6794-7ca9-e96910af4...@prevas.dk> you wrote:
>
> > Testing on a single platform (which apparently has aother problems,
> > or you would not need any such change) is not convincing.
>
> I don't, actually, need this change, but suggested it as a way towards
>
On 17/03/2020 15.31, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Rasmus,
>
> In message <01193803-be8f-865d-5fce-2c7cee0fd...@prevas.dk> you wrote:
>>
>>> Are you aware that there is the PPC-global implementation of
>>> wait_ticks() in arch/powerpc/lib/ticks.S , plus another MPC83xx
>>> specific one in
Dear Rasmus,
In message <56b724ef-8051-8a46-5df8-fc5b00bd8...@prevas.dk> you wrote:
>
> Yes, but I'm not talking about or using the SOC watchdog. Also, this is
> not really about the particular watchdog device at all. It is about what
> generic code can expect from the __udelay primitive, which
Dear Rasmus,
In message <01193803-be8f-865d-5fce-2c7cee0fd...@prevas.dk> you wrote:
>
> >> An MPC8309-derived board which does not utilize the SOCs watchdog but
> >> has an external gpio-triggered (always-running) watchdog circuit.
> >
> > This is not even close to global coverage.
>
> No, of
On 17/03/2020 14.21, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 17/03/2020 à 14:07, Rasmus Villemoes a écrit :
>>
>>> In any case it seems to me a board specific redefinition of the
>>> WATCHDOG_RESET macro would be less intrusive and risky than changing
>>> code that has been there since the beginning of
Le 17/03/2020 à 14:07, Rasmus Villemoes a écrit :
In any case it seems to me a board specific redefinition of the
WATCHDOG_RESET macro would be less intrusive and risky than changing
code that has been there since the beginning of time (well, at least
more than 18 years).
The point is,
On 17/03/2020 13.21, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Rasmus,
>
> In message <1b6c7efd-8264-6cb5-0b39-3223bae5f...@prevas.dk> you wrote:
>>
>> Or do you not agree that __udelay is supposed to be a raw primitive that
>> does the delay and nothing else?
>
> I agree, and it does that - it converts the
Dear Rasmus,
In message <1b6c7efd-8264-6cb5-0b39-3223bae5f...@prevas.dk> you wrote:
>
> Or do you not agree that __udelay is supposed to be a raw primitive that
> does the delay and nothing else?
I agree, and it does that - it converts the microseconds into ticks,
and calls wait_ticks(), and
On 17/03/2020 11.02, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Rasmus,
>
> In message <20200316212337.30204-1-rasmus.villem...@prevas.dk> you wrote:
>> wait_ticks() is only used by the ppc-specific __udelay()
>> function. Having the powerpc version of __udelay implicitly call
>> WATCHDOG_RESET() is
Dear Rasmus,
In message <20200316212337.30204-1-rasmus.villem...@prevas.dk> you wrote:
> wait_ticks() is only used by the ppc-specific __udelay()
> function. Having the powerpc version of __udelay implicitly call
> WATCHDOG_RESET() is inconsistent with other architectures' (and the
> generic
10 matches
Mail list logo
