From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261241AbVFBIU4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:20:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261228AbVFBIS5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:18:57 -0400 Received: from webapps.arcom.com ([194.200.159.168]:6148 "EHLO webapps.arcom.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261225AbVFBISP (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:18:15 -0400 Subject: deactivating PXA255 watchdog From: Ian Campbell To: Wim Van Sebroeck Cc: Russell King , Nicolas Pitre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Arcom Control Systems Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:18:04 +0100 Message-Id: <1117700284.3063.51.camel@icampbell-debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2005 08:27:15.0843 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2199530:01C5674C] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Wim, I think you are the current "watchdog guy", although watchdog doesn't have a MAINTAINERS entry so I'm looking at bk/lkml history etc and might be mistaken... I wrote to the the linux-arm-kernel mailing list recently with a query because the sa1100_wdt code supports the writing 'V' to deactivate the watchdog thing, but unfortunately once armed the hardware cannot be deactivated. I was going to produce a patch to remove the 'V' support and it was suggested by Russell that I should ask for your opinion. Do you have a preference with regards to offering a warning or error etc if a 'V' is written? My original message is below. I have had confirmation that the SA1100 has the same behaviour as PXA2xx from Nico. Ian. > The code in drivers/char/watchdog/sa1100_wdt.c has support for the > standard write a 'V' for a safe shutdown semantics, which clears the > OIER[E3] bit. > > However, it seems that even if this bit is clear the watchdog reset will > still occur because OWER[WME] is set (and cannot be cleared). > > Removing this support (perhaps with a warning/error or something) would > seem to make sense but I wanted to check that the SA1100 behaviour was > the same since they share the driver before I submitted anything. -- Ian Campbell, Senior Design Engineer Web: http://www.arcom.com Arcom, Clifton Road, Direct: +44 (0)1223 403 465 Cambridge CB1 7EA, United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0)1223 411 200