Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: sp805: set WDOG_HW_RUNNING when appropriate
To:     Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>,
        Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <1527014840-21236-1-git-send-email-ray.jui@broadcom.com>
 <1527014840-21236-4-git-send-email-ray.jui@broadcom.com>
 <20180522205457.GA16363@roeck-us.net>
 <0d92b9e9-a3d1-6e91-8371-b5ed3a83e399@broadcom.com>
 <00c121ea-d197-93b8-2f56-bcca963f70fb@broadcom.com>
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Message-ID: <76d47e02-7a5f-3fc2-3905-cd4aa03ac69c@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 May 2018 12:48:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00c121ea-d197-93b8-2f56-bcca963f70fb@broadcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 23/05/18 08:52, Scott Branden wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18-05-22 04:24 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
>> Hi Guenter,
>>
>> On 5/22/2018 1:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:47:18AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
>>>> If the watchdog hardware is already enabled during the boot process,
>>>> when the Linux watchdog driver loads, it should reset the watchdog and
>>>> tell the watchdog framework. As a result, ping can be generated from
>>>> the watchdog framework, until the userspace watchdog daemon takes over
>>>> control
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@broadcom.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c 
>>>> b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
>>>> index 1484609..408ffbe 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sp805_wdt.c
>>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
>>>>       /* control register masks */
>>>>       #define    INT_ENABLE    (1 << 0)
>>>>       #define    RESET_ENABLE    (1 << 1)
>>>> +    #define    ENABLE_MASK    (INT_ENABLE | RESET_ENABLE)
>>>>   #define WDTINTCLR        0x00C
>>>>   #define WDTRIS            0x010
>>>>   #define WDTMIS            0x014
>>>> @@ -74,6 +75,18 @@ module_param(nowayout, bool, 0);
>>>>   MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout,
>>>>           "Set to 1 to keep watchdog running after device release");
>>>>   +/* returns true if wdt is running; otherwise returns false */
>>>> +static bool wdt_is_running(struct watchdog_device *wdd)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct sp805_wdt *wdt = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdd);
>>>> +
>>>> +    if ((readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK) ==
>>>> +        ENABLE_MASK)
>>>> +        return true;
>>>> +    else
>>>> +        return false;
>>>
>>>     return !!(readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK));
>>>
>>
>> Note ENABLE_MASK contains two bits (INT_ENABLE and RESET_ENABLE); 
>> therefore, a simple !!(expression) would not work? That is, the masked 
>> result needs to be compared against the mask again to ensure both bits 
>> are set, right?
> Ray - your original code looks correct to me.  Easier to read and less 
> prone to errors as shown in the attempted translation to a single 
> statement.

	if (<boolean condition>)
		return true;
	else
		return false;

still looks really dumb, though, and IMO is actually harder to read than 
just "return <boolean condition>;" because it forces you to stop and 
double-check that the logic is, in fact, only doing the obvious thing.

Robin.


p.s. No thanks for making me remember the mind-boggling horror of 
briefly maintaining part of this legacy codebase... :P

$ grep -r '? true : false' --include=*.cpp . | wc -l
951