On 9/18/22 22:58, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 04:17, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/18/22 07:08, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(action, "Action taken when watchdog expires, 0 to reset, 1 to poweroff (default="
+ __MODULE_STRING(WATCHDOG_ACTION) ")");
+
Other module parameters are not visible. I do not see the benefit of
having this one visible.
My bad
-#define SP5100_WDT_ACTION_RESET BIT(2)
+#define SP5100_WDT_ACTION BIT(2)
I do not see the point of renaming this define.
The bit is just called "action" ("WatchDogAction") in the technical
documentation. I figure that the original author chose to name the
define "ACTION_RESET" instead of just "ACTION" because the original
implementation only ever cleared this bit, therefore only setting the
action to "reset". Now that this is no longer true, calling it simply
"action" to match the spec seemed more appropriate. What do you think?
I am not getting into define name editing wars. The define is named as
it is. There is never a good reason to rename it. If I'd accept your
change, someone else might come tomorrow and want it renamed to
"SP5100_WDT_ACTION_POWEROFF" because setting the bit to 1 causes
the system to power off.
No, I am not getting into that.
Guenter
