Damien Riegel writes:
> > + if (code == SYS_DOWN || code == SYS_HALT) {
> >
> > I think you want this to be (code == SYS_POWER_OFF || code == SYS_HALT)
> > AFAIK SYS_DOWN is the code for a reboot, where the system should come
> > back up immediatly, so probably we shouldn't disable the watchdog in
> > this case, for the system might crash during going down.
>
> Well, most of the drivers (all of them but gpio) that I changed stopped
> on SYS_HALT and SYS_DOWN, so they explicitely wanted to stop the
> watchdog on reboot. I just factorized that in watchdog core.
If they wanted to do so, or the code just got copied around, is
unclear. SYS_DOWN isn't the most helpful name after all, but ...
> Maybe they should not stop on reboot in the first place, but this serie
> does not introduce a new behaviour.
okay. I can always send a follow up patch, if I care enough.
> > More importantly however we should stop the watchdog on SYS_POWER_OFF
> > I think.
> >
> My understanding here is that if the system is powered off, the watchdog
> will be powered off too, so there is no need to stop it.
This is true for many platforms, but I'm pretty sure that not all
platforms have a real power off. So unless you can think of a reason not
to stop the watchdog on power off, I think the core should do it.
Actually if this can't be the default, we probably need to extend
your code so that drivers can select the behaviour they want.
(Of course we would hate to do that, as power management and watchdogs
are pretty orthogonal subsystems and having one depend on the behaviour
of the other is very unfortunate.)
HTE,
Harald
--
If you want to support my work:
see http://friends.ccbib.org/harald/supporting/
or donate via bitcoin to 1FUtd8T9jRN1rFz63vZz7s2fDtB6d6A7aS
--
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
