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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200403052900.258855-1-evanbenn@chromium.org>
 <20200403162742.v2.2.Ia92bb4d4ce84bcefeba1d00aaa1c1e919b6164ef@changeid> <CAODwPW_iSK_d6EHCk7QUVF7=bHVLuUYHX5mfapf+yeyuHHdNZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAODwPW_iSK_d6EHCk7QUVF7=bHVLuUYHX5mfapf+yeyuHHdNZA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Evan Benn <evanbenn@chromium.org>
Date:   Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:00:18 +1100
Message-ID: <CAKz_xw3W3xWBfspj0DmbR-p8qF9A+sSsuT_euqmYNbx=47HpoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] watchdog: Add new arm_smd_wdt watchdog driver
To:     Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Xingyu Chen <xingyu.chen@amlogic.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@nxp.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
        Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin.juszkiewicz@linaro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
        LINUX-WATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 9:56 AM Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > +       wdd->info = &smcwd_info;
> > +       /* get_timeleft is optional */
> > +       if (smcwd_call(SMCWD_GET_TIMELEFT, 0, NULL))
>
> How is this supposed to work? A firmware that implements this call
> would return the time left here which may not be 0 (maybe the watchdog
> was already primed by the bootloader or whatever), so smcwd_call()
> would interpret it as an error.
>
> I think the cleanest solution would be to stick to the same return
> codes in a0 and use a1 to report the time left when a0 is
> PSCI_SUCCESS. This is more consistent with SMCWD_INIT too.

Yes you are right, I have the wrong return code in the get_timeleft
implementation. It should use ->a1 for the actual timeleft, a0 is for
the error code.

Here smcwd_call returns the error code, which is NOT_IMPLEMENTED if
the firmware does not implement timeleft. The timeleft itself cannot
return error codes else we would just return that there I guess.