[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YmeMyqNqnooVifz1@google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:10:18 +0800
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To: Liu Xinpeng <liuxp11@...natelecom.cn>
Cc: wim@...ux-watchdog.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] watchdog: wdat_wdg: Using the existed function to
check parameter timeout
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:35:17AM +0800, Liu Xinpeng wrote:
> The module arguement timeout is a configured timeout value.
> “separate minimum and maximum HW timeouts and configured timeout value.”
> (patch v1 is explained by Guenter Roeck)
>
> So using watchdog_timeout_invalid to check timeout invalid is more justified.
The v3 commit message doesn't help too much for understanding the patch. You
could see [1] for some reference sentences. See also [2].
[1]: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-watchdog/patch/1650874932-18407-2-git-send-email-liuxp11@chinatelecom.cn/#24831418
[2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.18-rc4/source/Documentation/watchdog/watchdog-kernel-api.rst#L95
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> #include <linux/watchdog.h>
>
> #define MAX_WDAT_ACTIONS ACPI_WDAT_ACTION_RESERVED
> +#define WDAT_TIMEOUT_MIN 1
To be consistent, would MIN_WDAT_TIMEOUT be a better name?
> @@ -344,6 +345,7 @@ static int wdat_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> wdat->period = tbl->timer_period;
> wdat->wdd.min_hw_heartbeat_ms = wdat->period * tbl->min_count;
> wdat->wdd.max_hw_heartbeat_ms = wdat->period * tbl->max_count;
> + wdat->wdd.min_timeout = WDAT_TIMEOUT_MIN;
Does it really need to configure the `min_timeout`? What if leave it as is
(i.e. 0)?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists