Hi Arnaud, > I had the occasion to have a look to the code in -next this week, so > my comment will be based on this. > > One thing which looked too constrained to me, is that the framework > only supports a for a single watchdog. While this is fine for most > board, I have an x86 based device which has 2 watchdog. This might be > silly, but that's what the hardware provide. The current wartchdog > framework would fail to adapt to this board. Moreover, one might think > to provide interface to fail-to-wire NICs device on top of the > watchdog framework. So at the end, it might be needed to be able to > register an infinite amount of watchdog. Though, I am not sure how it > would presented to userland, maybe something ala /dev/watchdog/[0-N]. This is what I said allready in the past: 1) we need the framework to get rid of the existing common code first. 2) next step is to extend the framework to support multiple watchdogs. (via a sysfs like interface). And we are seeing other interesting functionality that might also be added to the framework. So still a lot of work to do :-). PS: this comment was removed as a cleanup from Beta code to code that is ready to be included in mainline: + /* The future version will have to manage a list of all + * registered watchdog devices. To start we will only + * support 1 watchdog device via the /dev/watchdog interface */ Kind regards, Wim. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
