[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151012090930.GA747@gradator.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:09:30 +0200
From: Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.rochet@...secur.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang@...el.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] watchdog: sama5d4: try to set timeout from device
tree first
Hi Alexandre,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:50:01AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi Sylvain,
>
> The rest of the series looks good to me, one comment below:
>
> On 08/10/2015 at 23:34:34 +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote :
> > watchdog_init_timeout function doesn't try to get the "timeout-sec" DT
> > property if timeout_parm is not zero. This change makes this DT property
> > working for the sama5d4 watchdog driver.
>
> While I'm not sure of the feasibility, I think that the module parameter
> should override the DT property.
That's not that hard, we can remove the initialisation of wdt_timeout to
WDT_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT and use the 0 magic value, which is not an
acceptable timeout value, to tell whether the variable was set with a
module parameter or not.
I followed what was done in the at91sam9_wdt driver but I agree the
module parameter should override the DT property, if we all agree on
that, I will also change this behavior in at91sam9_wdt in v2, at least
for the sake of coherency between drivers.
Sylvain
--
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