Re: AT91SAM9/CAP9 watchdog driver

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andrew Victor <avictor.za@...>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <wim@...>, <linux-arm-kernel@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - 2:24 pm

> The issue above is rather that probe() should not fail if

Every other watchdog behaves as follows

- If you specify a bogus value it doesn't load
- If you specify no value you get a valid default
- If you specify a valid value you get that

I don't believe yours should be different.

Alan
--
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)