On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:18:44AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> On 8/19/20 8:59 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > Hi Ahmad,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 03:18:16PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> >> Commit 0b944fce55f4 ("watchdog: permit `wd 0` for non-stoppable, but
> >> inactive, watchdogs") silently broke use of non-stoppable, but inactive,
> >> watchdogs altogether.
> >
> > Didn't this commit break *all* watchdogs? With 0b944fce55f4 an inactive
> > watchdog will never be activated anymore.
>
> watchdog_hw_running() returns -ENOSYS for watchdog that don't report whether
> they are running, so it broke all those who do report it and are inactive at
> driver probe time.
Ah, I see. I didn't look at the implementation of watchdog_hw_running().
The code explicitly tested for a boolean result, so it seemed obvious to
me that this function returns either true or false, but not an error.
Sascha
--
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 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
