Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Alan Cox <alan@...>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <wim@...>, <linux-arm-kernel@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - 2:36 pm

hi Alan,


The validity of the timeout value is checked in at91_wdt_settimeout().
 It returns -EINVAL if the timeout value is invalid.

The issue above is rather that probe() should not fail if
at91_wdt_settimeout() returns -EINVAL, since we'd like the
driver/module to still load to allow the user to later specify a valid
timeout via ioctl(WDIOC_SETTIMEOUT).


Regards,
  Andrew Victor
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, Andrew Victor, (Sun Jun 1, 12:40 pm)
Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, David Brownell, (Sat Jun 7, 2:39 am)
Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, Andrew Morton, (Tue Jun 3, 5:23 pm)
Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, Andrew Victor, (Wed Jun 4, 3:31 am)
Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, Alan Cox, (Wed Jun 4, 7:36 am)
Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, Andrew Victor, (Wed Jun 4, 2:36 pm)
Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, Alan Cox, (Wed Jun 4, 2:24 pm)
Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, Andrew Victor, (Wed Jun 4, 3:02 pm)
Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, Alan Cox, (Wed Jun 4, 3:18 pm)
Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver, Alan Cox, (Mon Jun 2, 2:58 am)