[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56B23883.7000501@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:27:31 -0600
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To: fu.wei@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com,
mark.rutland@....com, ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk,
galak@...eaurora.org, wim@...ana.be, linux@...ck-us.net,
corbet@....net, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
rruigrok@...eaurora.org, harba@...eaurora.org, cov@...eaurora.org,
dyoung@...hat.com, panand@...hat.com, graeme.gregory@...aro.org,
al.stone@...aro.org, hanjun.guo@...aro.org, jcm@...hat.com,
arnd@...db.de, leo.duran@....com, sudeep.holla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/5] Watchdog: ARM SBSA Generic Watchdog half timeout
panic support
fu.wei@...aro.org wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SBSA_WATCHDOG_PANIC
> +static bool panic_enabled = true;
I think this should default to 'false', because IMHO, this seems like an
odd feature. I'm not crazy about the fact that there's a Kconfig option
for it either, but I'm not going to NACK this patch.
I personally would prefer to drop this patch, and just wait for
full-blown pre-timeout support. It feels like a debugging feature that
doesn't really belong upstream. But like I said, it's just my opinion,
and I won't complain if I'm outvoted.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists