diff mbox series

[v2,2/2] watchdog: max63xx_wdt: Add support for specifying WDI logic via GPIO

Message ID 20220429131349.21229-2-pali@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Headers show
Series [v2,1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: max63xx: Add GPIO binding | expand

Commit Message

Pali Rohár April 29, 2022, 1:13 p.m. UTC
On some boards is WDI logic of max6370 chip connected via GPIO.
So extend max63xx_wdt driver to allow specifying WDI logic via GPIO.

Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org>
---
Changes in v2:
* Usage of dev_err_probe()
* Fixing assignment of wdt->ping
* Remove clearing of wdt->gpio_wdi
* Move YAML change to separate patch
---
 drivers/watchdog/max63xx_wdt.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)

Comments

Tzung-Bi Shih May 3, 2022, 3:57 a.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:13:49PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>  #include <linux/io.h>
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>  #include <linux/property.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>

It would be better to keep them alphabetically.  Anyway, they aren't sorted
originally...

> +static void max63xx_gpio_ping(struct max63xx_wdt *wdt)
> +{
> +	spin_lock(&wdt->lock);

Does it really need to acquire the lock?  It looks like the lock is to prevent
concurrent accesses to the mmap in max63xx_mmap_ping() and max63xx_mmap_set().

> +	gpiod_set_value_cansleep(wdt->gpio_wdi, 1);
> +	udelay(1);

Doesn't it need to include <linux/delay.h> for udelay()?

> @@ -225,10 +240,19 @@ static int max63xx_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	wdt->gpio_wdi = devm_gpiod_get(dev, NULL, GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_DIR_OUT);
> +	if (IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) && PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) != -ENOENT)

Use devm_gpiod_get_optional() to make the intent clear.  Also, it gets rid of
the check for -ENOENT.

> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi),
> +				     "unable to request gpio: %ld\n",
> +				     PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi));

It doesn't need to again print for PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi).  dev_err_probe()
prints the error.

>  	err = max63xx_mmap_init(pdev, wdt);
>  	if (err)
>  		return err;
>  
> +	if (!IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi))
> +		wdt->ping = max63xx_gpio_ping;

Thus, the max63xx_gpio_ping() overrides max63xx_mmap_ping() if the GPIO was
provided?  It would be better to mention the behavior in the commit message.

Also, could both the assignments of `wdt->gpio_wdi` and `wdt->ping` happen
after max63xx_mmap_init()?
Guenter Roeck May 3, 2022, 4:37 a.m. UTC | #2
On 5/2/22 20:57, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:13:49PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/io.h>
>>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>>   #include <linux/property.h>
>> +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> 
> It would be better to keep them alphabetically.  Anyway, they aren't sorted
> originally...
> 
>> +static void max63xx_gpio_ping(struct max63xx_wdt *wdt)
>> +{
>> +	spin_lock(&wdt->lock);
> 
> Does it really need to acquire the lock?  It looks like the lock is to prevent
> concurrent accesses to the mmap in max63xx_mmap_ping() and max63xx_mmap_set().
> 

Actually, that doesn't work at all. spin_lock() directly contradicts
with gpiod_set_value_cansleep().

>> +	gpiod_set_value_cansleep(wdt->gpio_wdi, 1);
>> +	udelay(1);
> 
> Doesn't it need to include <linux/delay.h> for udelay()?
> 
>> @@ -225,10 +240,19 @@ static int max63xx_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	wdt->gpio_wdi = devm_gpiod_get(dev, NULL, GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_DIR_OUT);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) && PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) != -ENOENT)
> 
> Use devm_gpiod_get_optional() to make the intent clear.  Also, it gets rid of
> the check for -ENOENT.
> 
>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi),
>> +				     "unable to request gpio: %ld\n",
>> +				     PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi));
> 
> It doesn't need to again print for PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi).  dev_err_probe()
> prints the error.
> 
>>   	err = max63xx_mmap_init(pdev, wdt);
>>   	if (err)
>>   		return err;
>>   
>> +	if (!IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi))
>> +		wdt->ping = max63xx_gpio_ping;
> 
> Thus, the max63xx_gpio_ping() overrides max63xx_mmap_ping() if the GPIO was
> provided?  It would be better to mention the behavior in the commit message.
> 
> Also, could both the assignments of `wdt->gpio_wdi` and `wdt->ping` happen
> after max63xx_mmap_init()?
Pali Rohár May 3, 2022, 10:05 p.m. UTC | #3
On Monday 02 May 2022 21:37:16 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 5/2/22 20:57, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:13:49PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> > >   #include <linux/io.h>
> > >   #include <linux/slab.h>
> > >   #include <linux/property.h>
> > > +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> > 
> > It would be better to keep them alphabetically.  Anyway, they aren't sorted
> > originally...
> > 
> > > +static void max63xx_gpio_ping(struct max63xx_wdt *wdt)
> > > +{
> > > +	spin_lock(&wdt->lock);
> > 
> > Does it really need to acquire the lock?  It looks like the lock is to prevent
> > concurrent accesses to the mmap in max63xx_mmap_ping() and max63xx_mmap_set().
> > 
> 
> Actually, that doesn't work at all. spin_lock() directly contradicts
> with gpiod_set_value_cansleep().
> 
> > > +	gpiod_set_value_cansleep(wdt->gpio_wdi, 1);
> > > +	udelay(1);
> > 
> > Doesn't it need to include <linux/delay.h> for udelay()?
> > 
> > > @@ -225,10 +240,19 @@ static int max63xx_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >   		return -EINVAL;
> > >   	}
> > > +	wdt->gpio_wdi = devm_gpiod_get(dev, NULL, GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_DIR_OUT);
> > > +	if (IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) && PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) != -ENOENT)
> > 
> > Use devm_gpiod_get_optional() to make the intent clear.  Also, it gets rid of
> > the check for -ENOENT.
> > 
> > > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi),
> > > +				     "unable to request gpio: %ld\n",
> > > +				     PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi));
> > 
> > It doesn't need to again print for PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi).  dev_err_probe()
> > prints the error.
> > 
> > >   	err = max63xx_mmap_init(pdev, wdt);
> > >   	if (err)
> > >   		return err;
> > > +	if (!IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi))
> > > +		wdt->ping = max63xx_gpio_ping;
> > 
> > Thus, the max63xx_gpio_ping() overrides max63xx_mmap_ping() if the GPIO was
> > provided?  It would be better to mention the behavior in the commit message.
> > 
> > Also, could both the assignments of `wdt->gpio_wdi` and `wdt->ping` happen
> > after max63xx_mmap_init()?
> 

Hello! I'm going to look at all these issues. Recently I sent max63
watchdog driver also into U-Boot and seems that I mixed DTS and driver
code between U-Boot and Kernel... and tested something mixed.

I will do new testing again, and will check that I'm testing correct
code.
Pali Rohár July 5, 2022, 12:12 a.m. UTC | #4
On Wednesday 04 May 2022 00:05:50 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 02 May 2022 21:37:16 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 5/2/22 20:57, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:13:49PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> > > >   #include <linux/io.h>
> > > >   #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > >   #include <linux/property.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> > > 
> > > It would be better to keep them alphabetically.  Anyway, they aren't sorted
> > > originally...
> > > 
> > > > +static void max63xx_gpio_ping(struct max63xx_wdt *wdt)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	spin_lock(&wdt->lock);
> > > 
> > > Does it really need to acquire the lock?  It looks like the lock is to prevent
> > > concurrent accesses to the mmap in max63xx_mmap_ping() and max63xx_mmap_set().
> > > 
> > 
> > Actually, that doesn't work at all. spin_lock() directly contradicts
> > with gpiod_set_value_cansleep().
> > 
> > > > +	gpiod_set_value_cansleep(wdt->gpio_wdi, 1);
> > > > +	udelay(1);
> > > 
> > > Doesn't it need to include <linux/delay.h> for udelay()?
> > > 
> > > > @@ -225,10 +240,19 @@ static int max63xx_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > >   		return -EINVAL;
> > > >   	}
> > > > +	wdt->gpio_wdi = devm_gpiod_get(dev, NULL, GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_DIR_OUT);
> > > > +	if (IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) && PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) != -ENOENT)
> > > 
> > > Use devm_gpiod_get_optional() to make the intent clear.  Also, it gets rid of
> > > the check for -ENOENT.
> > > 
> > > > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi),
> > > > +				     "unable to request gpio: %ld\n",
> > > > +				     PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi));
> > > 
> > > It doesn't need to again print for PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi).  dev_err_probe()
> > > prints the error.
> > > 
> > > >   	err = max63xx_mmap_init(pdev, wdt);
> > > >   	if (err)
> > > >   		return err;
> > > > +	if (!IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi))
> > > > +		wdt->ping = max63xx_gpio_ping;
> > > 
> > > Thus, the max63xx_gpio_ping() overrides max63xx_mmap_ping() if the GPIO was
> > > provided?  It would be better to mention the behavior in the commit message.
> > > 
> > > Also, could both the assignments of `wdt->gpio_wdi` and `wdt->ping` happen
> > > after max63xx_mmap_init()?
> > 
> 
> Hello! I'm going to look at all these issues. Recently I sent max63
> watchdog driver also into U-Boot and seems that I mixed DTS and driver
> code between U-Boot and Kernel... and tested something mixed.
> 
> I will do new testing again, and will check that I'm testing correct
> code.

Hello! Now I sent a new version V3. I have tested it on PowerPC P2020
based board where watchdog registers are exported via CPLD and new V3
version is working fine.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/max63xx_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/max63xx_wdt.c
index 9e1541cfae0d..6e43f9e6d7eb 100644
--- a/drivers/watchdog/max63xx_wdt.c
+++ b/drivers/watchdog/max63xx_wdt.c
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ 
 #include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/property.h>
+#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
 
 #define DEFAULT_HEARTBEAT 60
 #define MAX_HEARTBEAT     60
@@ -53,6 +54,9 @@  struct max63xx_wdt {
 	void __iomem *base;
 	spinlock_t lock;
 
+	/* GPIOs */
+	struct gpio_desc *gpio_wdi;
+
 	/* WDI and WSET bits write access routines */
 	void (*ping)(struct max63xx_wdt *wdt);
 	void (*set)(struct max63xx_wdt *wdt, u8 set);
@@ -158,6 +162,17 @@  static const struct watchdog_info max63xx_wdt_info = {
 	.identity = "max63xx Watchdog",
 };
 
+static void max63xx_gpio_ping(struct max63xx_wdt *wdt)
+{
+	spin_lock(&wdt->lock);
+
+	gpiod_set_value_cansleep(wdt->gpio_wdi, 1);
+	udelay(1);
+	gpiod_set_value_cansleep(wdt->gpio_wdi, 0);
+
+	spin_unlock(&wdt->lock);
+}
+
 static void max63xx_mmap_ping(struct max63xx_wdt *wdt)
 {
 	u8 val;
@@ -225,10 +240,19 @@  static int max63xx_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
+	wdt->gpio_wdi = devm_gpiod_get(dev, NULL, GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_DIR_OUT);
+	if (IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) && PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi) != -ENOENT)
+		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi),
+				     "unable to request gpio: %ld\n",
+				     PTR_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi));
+
 	err = max63xx_mmap_init(pdev, wdt);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
+	if (!IS_ERR(wdt->gpio_wdi))
+		wdt->ping = max63xx_gpio_ping;
+
 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, &wdt->wdd);
 	watchdog_set_drvdata(&wdt->wdd, wdt);