Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Apr 2022 01:12:40 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] watchdog: wdat_wdg: Using the existed function to check parameter timeout | From | Guenter Roeck <> |
| |
On 4/25/22 23:10, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote: > 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? >
Should just have set it to 1 below without using a define.
>> @@ -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)?
It is better to set it to 1. Otherwise "0" is considered a valid timeout, which doesn't make much sense.
Guenter
| |