Re: Further WatchDog Updates

[Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>]

Rob Radez wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Corey Minyard wrote:
>
>>Rob Radez wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, new version of watchdog updates is up at
>>>http://osinvestor.com/bigwatchdog-4.diff
>>>
>>Could the timeout be in milliseconds?  A lot of watchdogs have lower
>>resolution, and I have written applications that require a lower
>>resolution than a second.  Milliseconds is small enough to not cause
>>problems, but big enough to give a good range of time.
>>
>
>Not in 2.4, and I wonder if that might be too fine-grained for some
>drivers which have an upper limit of 255 seconds.  I also wonder if it
>would be considered ugly to extend WDIOC_SETOPTIONS to have a
>WDIOS_TIMEINMILLI bit.
>
>Regards,
>Rob Radez
>
Why is that too fine grained?  You would just set the values from 1000 
to 255000 instead of 1 to 255, and round up.

I have a board that sets the time value in wierd times (like 225ms, 
450ms, 900ms, 1800ms, 3600ms, etc.).  I wouldn't be against the 
WDIOS_TIMEINMILLI option, but milliseconds should be good enough for anyone.

-Corey