From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755797AbbEVFRz (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 01:17:55 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:36372 "EHLO mail-ob0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751161AbbEVFRt (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 01:17:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150521153225.GA17441@roeck-us.net> References: <=fu.wei@linaro.org> <1432197156-16947-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1432197156-16947-6-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <20150521153225.GA17441@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:17:48 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] Watchdog: introduce "pretimeout" into framework From: Fu Wei To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit , Linaro ACPI Mailman List , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Wei Fu , G Gregory , Al Stone , Hanjun Guo , Timur Tabi , Ashwin Chaugule , Arnd Bergmann , vgandhi@codeaurora.org, wim@iguana.be, Jon Masters , Leo Duran , Jon Corbet , Mark Rutland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Guenter, On 21 May 2015 at 23:32, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 04:32:34PM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote: >> From: Fu Wei >> >> Also update Documentation/watchdog/watchdog-kernel-api.txt to >> introduce: >> (1)the new elements in the watchdog_device and watchdog_ops struct; >> (2)the new API "watchdog_init_timeouts". >> >> Reasons: >> (1)kernel already has two watchdog drivers are using "pretimeout": >> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_watchdog.c >> drivers/watchdog/kempld_wdt.c(but the definition is different) >> (2)some other dirvers are going to use this: ARM SBSA Generic Watchdog >> >> Signed-off-by: Fu Wei >> --- > > [ ... ] > >> >> +/* Use the following function to check if a pretimeout value is invalid */ >> +static inline bool watchdog_pretimeout_invalid(struct watchdog_device *wdd, >> + unsigned int t) >> +{ >> + return ((wdd->max_pretimeout != 0) && >> + (t < wdd->min_pretimeout || t > wdd->max_pretimeout)); >> +} > > Should this function also enforce "t < wdd->timeout", and > should watchdog_timeout_invalid() enforce "t > wdd->pretimeout" ? yes, you are right , thanks for the correction !! :-) > > Thanks, > Guenter -- Best regards, Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct) Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile) Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15, One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District, Shanghai,China 200021