On 05/26/2018 10:39 AM, Marco Felsch wrote:
We can't move it to the _da9063_wdt_set_timeout() because the
da9063_wdt_set_timeout() uses the mapped timeouts later:
static int da9063_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdd,
unsigned int timeout)
{
[ ... ]
else
wdd->timeout = wdt_timeout[selector];
return ret;
}
...
if (ret)
return ret;
wdd->timeout = wdt_timeout[da9063_wdt_timeout_to_sel(timeout)];
return 0;
Guenter
Sorry, I tought da9063_wdt_timeout_to_sel() should get called only within
_da9063_wdt_set_timeout().
Well, you _could_ have _da9063_wdt_set_timeout() return either a negative
error code or the actually selected timeout. Just an idea.
Yes, I've tought about this approach too. Anyway, is it okay to split
the series into a "fixes" series and a "improvment" series? I think we
Yes
losing sight of the initial problem "Change the timeout value more than
once." A next improvment could be to squash the da9062/1 and da9063 into
one if this is possible.
Sure. Next step, though.
Thanks,
Guenter
--
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
