[PATCHv7 8/8] watchdog: omap_wdt: Convert to use new core extensions
Timo Kokkonen
timo.kokkonen at offcode.fi
Wed May 6 23:42:44 PDT 2015
On 04.05.2015 10:04, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Timo,
>
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 08:59:03AM +0300, Timo Kokkonen wrote:
>> Hi, 03.05.2015 21:56, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 02:11:42PM +0300, Timo Kokkonen wrote:
>>>> +static int omap_wdt_is_running(struct omap_wdt_dev *wdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + void __iomem *base = wdev->base;
>>>> +
>>>> + return readl_relaxed(base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_SPR) == 0x4444;
>>>> +}
>>> This isn't reliable. The sequence needed to enable the watchdog is
>>> writel(0xbbbb, base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_SPR);
>>> writel(0x4444, base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_SPR);
>>>
>>> The sequence to stop is:
>>> writel(0xaaaa, base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_SPR);
>>> writel(0x5555, base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_SPR);
>>>
>>> But:
>>>
>>> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ md 0x44e35048+4
>>> 44e35048: 00005555 UU..
>>> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ mw 0x44e35048 0x4444
>>> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ md 0x44e35048+4
>>> 44e35048: 00004444 DD..
>>>
>>> So the register contains 0x4444 but the timer doesn't run. So at best
>>> testing for 0x4444 is a good heuristic.
>>
>> Yeah.. I don't think we can get any better than that. Unless we
>> start checking the counter register and see whether it really counts
>> or not, and I think that's a bit overkill.. So I'd say we should be
>> safe when assuming bootloader is doing things correctly. Although,
>> we could add a comment to the code that the test may not be 100%
>> reliable in case the start sequence have not been issued properly.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out!
> It doesn't seem to much overhead to do:
>
> /*
> * There is no register that tells us if the timer is running,
> * so we have to resort to sample twice. The minimal frequency
> * is 256 Hz (32768 Hz prescaled with 2**7).
> */
> counter1 = readl(base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_CCR);
> mdelay(4);
> counter2 = readl(base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_CCR);
> return counter1 != counter2;
>
> I'd say it's even worth to do:
>
> cntrl = readl(base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_CNTRL);
> if (cntrl & (1 << 5))
> shift = (cntrl >> 2) & 0x7;
> else
> shift = 0;
> counter1 = readl(base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_CCR);
> udelay(31 << shift);
> counter2 = readl(base + OMAP_WATCHDOG_CCR);
> return counter1 != counter2;
>
> For some bonus points add some defines for the magic constants.
>
> This is save as the OMAP_WATCHDOG_CNTRL doesn't seem to accept reads
> while the counter is running. Maybe even this could be used to detect a
> running timer?:
Maybe, but you will get a data abort when the HW doesn't accept a read.
How do you recover from that?
Also, it seems that for some reason the watchdog HW is very picky about
which registers can be read in what condition. If I add the code to read
watchdog counter register, I will get a data abort later at the end of
the probe when the watchdog revision is read. I don't understand why
that happens, this does not seem logica. Maybe it has got something to
do with the fact that the watchdog is stopped? If I can't read the
counter register, I can't really implement the above heuristic.. Any ideas?
-Timo
>
> - enable timer:
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ mw 0x44e35048 0xbbbb
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ mw 0x44e35048 0x4444
>
> - read out WCLR
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ md 0x44e35024+4
> 44e35024: 00000020 ...
>
> - write to WCLR
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ mw 0x44e35024 0x0
>
> - check result; didn't work
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ md 0x44e35024+4
> 44e35024: 00000020 ...
>
> - stop timer
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ mw 0x44e35048 0xaaaa
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ mw 0x44e35048 0x5555
>
> - recheck WCLR
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ md 0x44e35024+4
> 44e35024: 00000020 ...
>
> - write to WCLR
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ mw 0x44e35024 0x0
>
> - check result; write succeeded
> barebox at TI AM335x BeagleBone black:/ md 0x44e35024+4
> 44e35024: 00000000 ....
>
> (This is was tested on an AM335x.)
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list