linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] watchdog: add support for sl28cpld watchdog

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200605140911.GO2428291@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 17:09:11 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] watchdog: add support for sl28cpld watchdog

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 06:52:00AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 6/5/20 3:50 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:24 PM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> wrote:
> >> Am 2020-06-05 10:14, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:14 AM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> wrote:

...

> >>>> +static bool nowayout = WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT;
> >>>> +module_param(nowayout, bool, 0);
> >>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout, "Watchdog cannot be stopped once started
> >>>> (default="
> >>>> +                               __MODULE_STRING(WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT)
> >>>> ")");
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int timeout;
> >>>> +module_param(timeout, int, 0);
> >>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(timeout, "Initial watchdog timeout in seconds");
> >>>
> >>> Guenter ACKed this, but I'm wondering why we still need module
> >>> parameters...
> >>
> >> How would a user change the nowayout or the timeout? For the latter
> >> there is
> >> a device tree entry, but thats not easy changable by the user.
> > 
> > Yes, it's more question to VIm and Guenter than to you.
> > 
> 
> Has support for providing module parameters with the kernel command line
> been discontinued/deprecated, or did it run out of favor ? Sorry if I
> missed that.

Latter according to Greg KH. One of the (plenty) examples [1].

[1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org/msg96495.html

> nowayout has a configuration default. A module parameter is sometimes
> provided by drivers to be able to override it. The timeout provided
> via devicetree or on the command line is only the initial/default
> timeout, and the watchdog daemon can change it after opening the
> watchdog device as it sees fit.

Thanks for explanation.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko