Re: [PATCH] watchdog: qcom: Remove incorrect usage of QCOM_WDT_ENABLE_IRQ - Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries

From: "Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries" <jorge@foundries.io>
To: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz,
	Foundries" <jorge@foundries.io>,
	Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: qcom: Remove incorrect usage of QCOM_WDT_ENABLE_IRQ
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 18:03:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210131170301.GA25412@trex> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <72cdf644c431b7b605f9d15a4a7fb7b8@codeaurora.org>

On 28/01/21, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 2021-01-28 13:49, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries wrote:
> > On 26/01/21, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > > As per register documentation, QCOM_WDT_ENABLE_IRQ which is BIT(1)
> > > of watchdog control register is wakeup interrupt enable bit and
> > > not related to bark interrupt at all, BIT(0) is used for that.
> > > So remove incorrect usage of this bit when supporting bark irq for
> > > pre-timeout notification. Currently with this bit set and bark
> > > interrupt specified, pre-timeout notification and/or watchdog
> > > reset/bite does not occur.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 36375491a439 ("watchdog: qcom: support pre-timeout when the
> > > bark irq is available")
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Reading the conversations from when qcom pre-timeout support was
> > > added [1], Bjorn already had mentioned it was not right to touch this
> > > bit, not sure which SoC the pre-timeout was tested on at that time,
> > > but I have tested this on SDM845, SM8150, SC7180 and watchdog bark
> > > and bite does not occur with enabling this bit with the bark irq
> > > specified in DT.
> > 
> > this was tested on QCS404. have you validated there? unfortunately I
> > no longer have access to that hardware or the documentation
> > 
> 
> I didn't validate on qcs404 yet since I didn't have access to it.
> But now that you mention it, let me arrange for a setup and test it
> there as well. Note: I did not see bark irq entry in upstream qcs404
> dtsi, so you must have had some local change when you tested?

TBH I dont quite remember. I suppose that if those with access to the
documents and hardware are OK with this change then it shouldnt cause
regressions (I just cant check from my end)

> 
> Thanks,
> Sai
> 
> -- 
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel