[PATCH 2/2] watchdog: mediatek: mt7988: add wdt support
Guenter Roeck
linux at roeck-us.net
Thu Nov 9 21:24:32 PST 2023
On 11/9/23 16:30, Daniel Golle wrote:
> Add support for watchdog and reset generator unit of the MediaTek
> MT7988 SoC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle <daniel at makrotopia.org>
> ---
> drivers/watchdog/mtk_wdt.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/mtk_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/mtk_wdt.c
> index b2330b16b497a..b98b8c29735aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/mtk_wdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/mtk_wdt.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> #include <dt-bindings/reset/mt2712-resets.h>
> #include <dt-bindings/reset/mediatek,mt6795-resets.h>
> #include <dt-bindings/reset/mt7986-resets.h>
> +#include <dt-bindings/reset/mediatek,mt7988-resets.h>
> #include <dt-bindings/reset/mt8183-resets.h>
> #include <dt-bindings/reset/mt8186-resets.h>
> #include <dt-bindings/reset/mt8188-resets.h>
> @@ -58,6 +59,8 @@
> #define WDT_SWSYSRST 0x18U
> #define WDT_SWSYS_RST_KEY 0x88000000
>
> +#define WDT_SWSYSRST_EN 0xfc
> +
> #define DRV_NAME "mtk-wdt"
> #define DRV_VERSION "1.0"
>
> @@ -71,44 +74,85 @@ struct mtk_wdt_dev {
> struct reset_controller_dev rcdev;
> bool disable_wdt_extrst;
> bool reset_by_toprgu;
> + bool has_swsysrst_en;
> };
>
> struct mtk_wdt_data {
> int toprgu_sw_rst_num;
> + bool has_swsysrst_en;
> };
>
> static const struct mtk_wdt_data mt2712_data = {
> .toprgu_sw_rst_num = MT2712_TOPRGU_SW_RST_NUM,
> + .has_swsysrst_en = false,
Those assignments to false, just like assignments to 0, are unnecessary
for static variables.
> };
>
> static const struct mtk_wdt_data mt6795_data = {
> .toprgu_sw_rst_num = MT6795_TOPRGU_SW_RST_NUM,
> + .has_swsysrst_en = false,
> };
>
> static const struct mtk_wdt_data mt7986_data = {
> .toprgu_sw_rst_num = MT7986_TOPRGU_SW_RST_NUM,
> + .has_swsysrst_en = false,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct mtk_wdt_data mt7988_data = {
> + .toprgu_sw_rst_num = MT7988_TOPRGU_SW_RST_NUM,
> + .has_swsysrst_en = true,
> };
>
> static const struct mtk_wdt_data mt8183_data = {
> .toprgu_sw_rst_num = MT8183_TOPRGU_SW_RST_NUM,
> + .has_swsysrst_en = false,
> };
>
> static const struct mtk_wdt_data mt8186_data = {
> .toprgu_sw_rst_num = MT8186_TOPRGU_SW_RST_NUM,
> + .has_swsysrst_en = false,
> };
>
> static const struct mtk_wdt_data mt8188_data = {
> .toprgu_sw_rst_num = MT8188_TOPRGU_SW_RST_NUM,
> + .has_swsysrst_en = false,
> };
>
> static const struct mtk_wdt_data mt8192_data = {
> .toprgu_sw_rst_num = MT8192_TOPRGU_SW_RST_NUM,
> + .has_swsysrst_en = false,
> };
>
> static const struct mtk_wdt_data mt8195_data = {
> .toprgu_sw_rst_num = MT8195_TOPRGU_SW_RST_NUM,
> + .has_swsysrst_en = false,
> };
>
> +static int toprgu_reset_sw_enable(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> + unsigned long id, bool enable)
This function name is a bit misleading. It doesn't always
_enable_ something, it updates it based on the enable parameter.
> +{
> + unsigned int tmp;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct mtk_wdt_dev *data =
> + container_of(rcdev, struct mtk_wdt_dev, rcdev);
> +
> + if (!data->has_swsysrst_en)
> + return 0;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&data->lock, flags);
> +
> + tmp = readl(data->wdt_base + WDT_SWSYSRST_EN);
> + if (enable)
> + tmp |= BIT(id);
> + else
> + tmp &= ~BIT(id);
> +
> + writel(tmp, data->wdt_base + WDT_SWSYSRST_EN);
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&data->lock, flags);
> +
I find this code quite confusing. If it is really necessary to set both
WDT_SWSYSRST_EN and WDT_SWSYSRST together, what is the point of locking twice ?
Why not just handle this in toprgu_reset_update() while the lock is
alread held ? There is a lot of code duplication and inefficiency between
toprgu_reset_sw_enable() and toprgu_reset_update(), and I really don't
see the value of it if WDT_SWSYSRST_EN and WDT_SWSYSRST have to be
written together anyway.
> + return 0;
This function always returns 0. That does not add any value.
> +}
> +
> static int toprgu_reset_update(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> unsigned long id, bool assert)
> {
> @@ -135,13 +179,20 @@ static int toprgu_reset_update(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> static int toprgu_reset_assert(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> unsigned long id)
> {
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = toprgu_reset_sw_enable(rcdev, id, true);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
I am kind of missing the point of this return value check. I guess it is in line
with the other unnecessary return values / return value checks in this code,
but this really gets a bit out of control. It kind of creates the wrong
assumption or expectation that the called code _may_ return an error,
but in reality it doesn't.
> return toprgu_reset_update(rcdev, id, true);
> }
>
> static int toprgu_reset_deassert(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> unsigned long id)
> {
> - return toprgu_reset_update(rcdev, id, false);
> + toprgu_reset_update(rcdev, id, false);
In a way it is commendable that the unnecessary return value handling was dropped,
but that makes the code inconsistent with the reset_assert() function. Also, it is
inconsistent to have the unnecessary return value check in toprgu_reset_assert()
but not here.
> + return toprgu_reset_sw_enable(rcdev, id, false);
> }
>
> static int toprgu_reset(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> @@ -406,6 +457,8 @@ static int mtk_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> wdt_data->toprgu_sw_rst_num);
> if (err)
> return err;
> +
> + mtk_wdt->has_swsysrst_en = wdt_data->has_swsysrst_en;
This is too late. The reset controller is already registered here,
and the reset controller functions may already have been called.
> }
>
> mtk_wdt->disable_wdt_extrst =
Oh well, this and the next property are also called too late because they
affect watchdog operation and the watchdog device has already been registered,
but that is a different bug and not a reason to add even more race conditions
to the driver.
> @@ -444,6 +497,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id mtk_wdt_dt_ids[] = {
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6589-wdt" },
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6795-wdt", .data = &mt6795_data },
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt7986-wdt", .data = &mt7986_data },
> + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt7988-wdt", .data = &mt7988_data },
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-wdt", .data = &mt8183_data },
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8186-wdt", .data = &mt8186_data },
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8188-wdt", .data = &mt8188_data },
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list