Dear Rasmus,
In message 1b6c7efd-8264-6cb5-0b39-3223bae5f8dc@prevas.dk you wrote:
Or do you not agree that __udelay is supposed to be a raw primitive that does the delay and nothing else?
I agree, and it does that - it converts the microseconds into ticks, and calls wait_ticks(), and does nothing else.
It's the wait_ticks() implementation which references the macro WATCHDOG_RESET.
There are not that many __udelay() calls, so I doubt this causes a regression for anyone. Callers of udelay() are not affected, since udelay() itself does one WATCHDOG_RESET() per __udelay() call.
Which exact platforms have you tested this on?
An MPC8309-derived board which does not utilize the SOCs watchdog but has an external gpio-triggered (always-running) watchdog circuit.
This is not even close to global coverage.
Are you aware that there is the PPC-global implementation of wait_ticks() in arch/powerpc/lib/ticks.S , plus another MPC83xx specific one in drivers/timer/mpc83xx_timer.c?
I don't even understand why MPC83xx needs special treatment.
In any case it seems to me a board specific redefinition of the WATCHDOG_RESET macro would be less intrusive and risky than changing code that has been there since the beginning of time (well, at least more than 18 years).
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk