Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] watchdog: Add new arm_smc_wdt watchdog driver

[Xingyu Chen <xingyu.chen@amlogic.com>]

Hi,Evan

On 2020/4/22 9:39, Evan Benn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 6:31 AM Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +static int smcwd_call(unsigned long smc_func_id, enum smcwd_call call,
>>> +                     unsigned long arg, struct arm_smccc_res *res)
>>
>> I think you should just take a struct watchdog_device* here and do the
>> drvdata unpacking inside the function.
> 
> That makes sense, I avoided it because smcwd_call's are made during
> 'probe', ~while
> we are 'constructing' the wdd. But this is C, so I think I have
> permission to do this!
> 
>>> +static int smcwd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct watchdog_device *wdd;
>>> +       int err;
>>> +       struct arm_smccc_res res;
>>> +       u32 *smc_func_id;
>>> +
>>> +       smc_func_id =
>>> +               devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*smc_func_id), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +       if (!smc_func_id)
>>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> nit: Could save the allocation by just casting the value itself to a
>> pointer? Or is that considered too hacky?
> 
> I am not yet used to what hacks are allowed in the kernel.
> Where I learned C that would not be allowed.
> I assumed the kernel allocator has fast paths for tiny sizes though.
> 
>>> +static const struct of_device_id smcwd_dt_ids[] = {
>>> +       { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-smc-wdt" },
>>> +       {}
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, smcwd_dt_ids);
>>
>> So I'm a bit confused about this... I thought the plan was to either
>> use arm,smc-id and then there'll be no reason to put platform-specific
>> quirks into the driver, so we can just use a generic "arm,smc-wdt"
>> compatible string on all platforms; or we put individual compatible
>> strings for each platform and use them to hardcode platform-specific
>> differences (like the SMC ID) in the driver. But now you're kinda
>> doing both by making the driver code platform-independent but still
>> using a platform-specific compatible string, that doesn't seem to fit
>> together. (If the driver can be platform independent, I think it's
>> nicer to have a generic compatible string so that future platforms
>> which support the same interface don't have to land code changes in
>> order to just use the driver.)
> 
> Yes I think you are correct. I got some reviews about the compatible name,
> but I think I misinterpreted those, and arm,smc-wdt would work. I did wonder
> if Xingyu from amlogic needed to modify the driver more, EG with different
> SMCWD_enum values for the amlogic chip, he could then just add an
> amlogic compatible
> and keep our devices running with the other compatible. Although of
> course it would be nicer if
> the amlogic firmware could copy the values here.
Using DTS property(arm,smc-id) or vendor's compatible to specify the 
Function ID is available for the meson-A1.The generic "arm, smc-wdt" 
looks nicer for MTK and Amlogic sec wdt, but the driver may not cover 
the other vendor's platform-specific differences in the future, so the 
platform-specific compatible string may be introduced eventually.

But again, I can accept the two methods above.

Thanks
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Evan
> 
> .
>