[PATCH] watchdog: use time_after_eq() in watchdog_reset()

[Rasmus Villemoes]

On 15/04/2021 09.13, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 15/04/2021 à 08:54, Rasmus Villemoes a écrit :
>> On 15/04/2021 07.38, Stefan Roese wrote:
>>> On 13.04.21 16:43, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>>> Some boards don't work with the rate-limiting done in the generic
>>>> watchdog_reset() provided by wdt-uclass.
>>>>
>>>> For example, on powerpc, get_timer() ceases working during bootm since
>>>> interrupts are disabled before the kernel image gets decompressed, and
>>>> when the decompression takes longer than the watchdog device
>>>> allows (or enough of the budget that the kernel doesn't get far enough
>>>> to assume responsibility for petting the watchdog), the result is a
>>>> non-booting board.
>>>>
>>>> As a somewhat hacky workaround (because DT is supposed to describe
>>>> hardware), allow specifying hw_margin_ms=0 in device tree to
>>>> effectively disable the ratelimiting and actually ping the watchdog
>>>> every time watchdog_reset() is called. For that to work, the "has
>>>> enough time passed" check just needs to be tweaked a little to allow
>>>> the now==next_reset case as well.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes at prevas.dk>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> It's the option I dislike the most (because of the DT abuse), but I
>>>> also do accept that it's the one with the minimal code impact, and
>>>> apparently the path of least resistance. So here it is.
>>>
>>> Right. An alternative way would have been to add a new Kconfig symbol
>>> to define the default value of "reset_period" so that it can be
>>> configured to different values via Kconfig as well.
>>
>> No, I don't think we should not go in that direction.
> 
> Double negation ....
> 
> You mean: I think we should go ?

No, there's a "not" too many. "I don't think we should go in that
direction.". Thanks. Leftover from last-second rephrasing.

Rasmus