From: "Albrecht Dreß" <albrecht.dress@arcor.de>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: Linux PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Devicetree Discussions <devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] mpc52xx/wdt: OF property to enable the WDT on boot
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:33:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1258058006.2192.0@antares> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa686aa40911121106j1d609868vb16d6867955aa607@mail.gmail.com> (from grant.likely@secretlab.ca on Thu Nov 12 20:06:03 2009)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1032 bytes --]
Hi Grant!
Am 12.11.09 20:06 schrieb(en) Grant Likely:
> > +The watchdog will respect the CONFIG_WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT option.
>
> I think it would be better to use a device tree property to enable up
> NOWAYOUT. The static config isn't multiplatform-friendly. Thoughts?
I fully agree with you that this property would fit perfectly in the device tree. However, if we now add it *only* for the 52xx, but not for other device tree-aware platforms, this might be somewhat confusing. The good thing is that it wouldn't break
anything for the 5200 as the old wdt driver didn't work anyway.
One *real* advantage of the compile-time option is that it actually removes the code which stops the wdt. I'm not a real expert in that, but if we argue that the system is "safe" as required by IEC/EN 61508 part 3, it's probably beneficial if we can show
that there *is* no code to stop the wdt, not a snipplet only disabled by a flag.
Just my €0.01, though - maybe more insight from the WDT gurus?
Cheers, Albrecht.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-12 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-12 18:43 [PATCHv2 1/3] mpc52xx/wdt: OF property to enable the WDT on boot Albrecht Dreß
2009-11-12 19:06 ` Grant Likely
2009-11-12 20:33 ` Albrecht Dreß [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1258058006.2192.0@antares \
--to=albrecht.dress@arcor.de \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).