[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-mediatek mailing list