From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Christoph Niedermaier <cniedermaier@dh-electronics.com>,
Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@diasemi.com>,
Andrej Picej <andrej.picej@norik.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@diasemi.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
"linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] watchdog: da9062: Correct the timeout values [Klartext]
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 05:58:28 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <03871bd3-ea78-52e1-f57b-3e35724c8934@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4254747d8cde4c5dbcbfdd00a3ecf701@dh-electronics.com>
On 12/13/21 1:11 AM, Christoph Niedermaier wrote:
> Resend with [Klartext] to turn off TLS encryption.
>
> From: Adam Thomson
> Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:38 PM
>>> Thanks anyway, so now I know it must be
>>> problem with my DA9061 chip.
>>>
>>> @Adam
>>> Where can it come from?
>>> Can you give we a hint what to check?
>>
>> I've spoken internally and have been informed that this is down to the fact that
>> DA9061 runs only from an internal oscillator which may be slower. The indication
>> is that the values for TWDSCALE describe the window where if a kick/ping occurs
>> within that period then the watchdog is guaranteed *not* to timeout. The actual
>> timeout would be at some point after the selected timeout period, assuming no
>> ping/kick occurred.
>>
>> Table 8 in the datasheet specifies a minimum watchdog timeout of 2.5s (tWDMAX)
>> under specific operating conditions, so if the minimum 2s window was chosen
>> (TWDSCALE = 1) then earliest the watchdog would actually timeout, following a
>> ping, is 2.5s, assuming the conditions matched those described.
>>
>> If you have further questions it probably makes sense to contact Dialog/Renesas
>> support as they will be able to provide more detailed info on this.
>
> So a DA9061 runs only from an internal oscillator, whereas a DA9062
> can run on either an internal or an external oscillator. So this
> means that the DA9061 timeout values are differ from the DA9062
> with an external oscillator not only on my device but on all DA9061
> devices.
>
> This are the values (in seconds) in comparison:
> DA9062 (from driver): 0 2 4 8 16 32 65 131
> DA9061 (measured): 0 3 6 12 25 51 102 204
> =================================================
> Difference: 0 +1 +2 +4 +9 +19 +37 +73
>
> In my opinion, the differences in the higher values are very huge.
> If I expect that the watchdog triggers and I have to wait more than
> a minute for that to happen I ask myself is there something wrong.
>
> @Andrej
> I guess, you are using an external oscillator, aren't you?
>
> @Adam
> Is there a way to check in the driver which oscillator is in use?
>
> @Maintainers
> Is in the driver a need to distinguish between an external and an
> internal oscillator to get the timeout values more accurate?
>
It would be very desirable to get timeout values more accurate.
I would not want to dictate how to implement it, though.
It could be automatically detected if that is possible, there
could be a devicetree clock property providing the clock
frequency, or maybe there is some other solution.
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-13 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-13 9:11 [RFC PATCH] watchdog: da9062: Correct the timeout values [Klartext] Christoph Niedermaier
2021-12-13 13:58 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2021-12-13 16:16 ` Christoph Niedermaier
2021-12-13 22:44 ` Christoph Niedermaier
2022-02-14 18:02 ` Christoph Niedermaier
2022-02-15 9:16 ` Adam Thomson
2021-12-13 14:31 ` Andrej Picej
2021-12-13 21:47 ` Christoph Niedermaier
2021-12-13 14:53 ` Adam Thomson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=03871bd3-ea78-52e1-f57b-3e35724c8934@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=Adam.Thomson.Opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=Support.Opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=andrej.picej@norik.com \
--cc=cniedermaier@dh-electronics.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wim@linux-watchdog.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).