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:     Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <scott.branden@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>
 <76d47e02-7a5f-3fc2-3905-cd4aa03ac69c@arm.com>
 <5a996888-d3d3-9ae6-e438-5de4d5e3ea32@broadcom.com>
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Message-ID: <ef3539fd-c95c-f364-93c7-680aabd1eea3@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 May 2018 18:15:14 +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: <5a996888-d3d3-9ae6-e438-5de4d5e3ea32@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 17:29, Ray Jui wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> 
> On 5/23/2018 4:48 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> If you can propose a way to modify my original code above to make it 
> more readable, I'm fine to make the change.

Well,

	return readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK == ENABLE_MASK;

would probably be reasonable to anyone other than the 80-column zealots, 
but removing the silly boolean-to-boolean translation idiom really only 
emphasises the fact that it's fundamentally a big complex statement; for 
maximum clarity I'd be inclined to separate the two logical operations 
(read and comparison), e.g.:

	u32 wdtcontrol = readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL);

	return wdtcontrol & ENABLE_MASK == ENABLE_MASK;

which is still -3 lines vs. the original.

> As I mentioned, I don't think the following change proposed by Guenter 
> will work due to the reason I pointed out:
> 
> return !!(readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK));

FWIW, getting the desired result should only need one logical not 
swapping for a bitwise one there:

	return !(~readl_relaxed(wdt->base + WDTCONTROL) & ENABLE_MASK);

but that's well into "too clever for its own good" territory ;)

Robin.