[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5294EF58.7040905@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:58:32 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
CC: Fabio Porcedda <fabio.porcedda@...il.com>,
Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: core: Make dt "timeout-sec" property work
on drivers w/out min/max
On 11/26/2013 10:22 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> It is valid for a watchdog driver to have 0 for a "min" and "max"
> timeout if the driver doesn't need the core to enforce the concepts of
> min and max. The s3c2410_wdt driver is one such driver. Specifically
> it can be hard for that driver to come up with a static "max" on all
> platforms without a lot more information since the input clock on
> S3C2410 and S3C2440 can change with DVFS.
>
> As written, watchdog_init_timeout() will not ever read "timeout-sec"
> on these drivers since watchdog_timeout_invalid() will _never_ return
> true. Change to not consider a timeout_parm of 0 as valid even if
> min/max aren't specified by the driver. Also handle the case when
> there is no min/max and no "timeout-sec" property.
>
> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Makes sense to me.
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists