Hello, On 10/7/20 1:04 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 10/7/20 3:18 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> Let's introduce a generic watchdog property `watchdog-priority' that >> provides a u32 to order the watchdogs for systems having two or more. >> The value 0 means the watchdog is unusable/broken/disabled and the >> watchdog with the biggest value is the one supposed to be used by >> default. >> > > How do you suggest to implement that ? Device naming is determined > by registration order. The watchdog subsystem doesn't decide which of > the watchdogs is being used; userspace does that by opening the > watchdog device. Userspace can already decide which watchdog to use > by checking its sysfs attributes. If we were to create a sysfs attribute > for userspace to read and compare, userspace could as well use the existing > 'identity' attribute to make that decision. Might be relevant for users of CONFIG_WATCHDOG_HANDLE_BOOT_ENABLED, so the kernel only starts that one watchdog? This seems out-of-scope for Uwe's Problem though. >> Analogous a property `watchdog-restart-priority` is used to define if a >> watchdog is supposed to be used to restart the machine. Again a value of >> 0 means "Don't use" and otherwise the highest-value watchdog is used to >> reset the machine. >> > > That makes more sense to me. Yes, such a `restart-priority' is what I had in mind. Preferably covering PMICs as well. Cheers, Ahmad > > Guenter > >> Maybe `restart-priority` is a better name that can also be used by >> PMICs?! >> >>> What's the DT folks opinion on that? >> >> Best regards >> Uwe >> > > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
