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;
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 20:08:26 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To:     Ken Sloat <KSloat@aampglobal.com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        "nicolas.ferre@microchip.com" <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
        "ludovic.desroches@microchip.com" <ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>,
        "wim@linux-watchdog.org" <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] watchdog: atmel: atmel-sama5d4-wdt: Disable
 watchdog on system suspend
Message-ID: <20190614180826.GD3369@piout.net>
References: <20190614125310.29458-1-ksloat@aampglobal.com>
 <20190614164609.GA29814@roeck-us.net>
 <BL0PR07MB4115E99D065FD9BEA4C43BB5ADEE0@BL0PR07MB4115.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR07MB4115E99D065FD9BEA4C43BB5ADEE0@BL0PR07MB4115.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 14/06/2019 17:53:01+0000, Ken Sloat wrote:
> > The call to sama5d4_wdt_init() above now explicitly stops the watchdog
> > even if we want to (re)start it. I think this would be better handled with an
> > else case here
> > 
> >         else
> >                 sama5d4_wdt_stop(&wdt->wdd);
> > 
> 
> So we completely remove the sama5d4_wdt_init() call then correct?
> 
> To leave the code as it behaves today with the addition
> of wdt stop/start, shouldn't we call init in the else instead?
> 
> 	if (watchdog_active(&wdt->wdd))
> 		sama5d4_wdt_start(&wdt->wdd);
> 	else
> 		sama5d4_wdt_init();
> 
> I guess I don't really understand the purpose of having the init statement in resume
> in the first place. I agree, calling this first does end up essentially resetting the wdt
> it will start again if it was running before, but the count will be reset.
> 

There is a nice comment explaining why ;)


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com