Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 09 Apr 2002 08:25:27 -0500 | From | Corey Minyard <> | Subject | Re: Further WatchDog Updates |
| |
Rob Radez wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Corey Minyard wrote: > >>Rob Radez wrote: >> >>>Ok, new version of watchdog updates is up at >>>http://osinvestor.com/bigwatchdog-4.diff >>> >>Could the timeout be in milliseconds? A lot of watchdogs have lower >>resolution, and I have written applications that require a lower >>resolution than a second. Milliseconds is small enough to not cause >>problems, but big enough to give a good range of time. >> > >Not in 2.4, and I wonder if that might be too fine-grained for some >drivers which have an upper limit of 255 seconds. I also wonder if it >would be considered ugly to extend WDIOC_SETOPTIONS to have a >WDIOS_TIMEINMILLI bit. > >Regards, >Rob Radez > Why is that too fine grained? You would just set the values from 1000 to 255000 instead of 1 to 255, and round up.
I have a board that sets the time value in wierd times (like 225ms, 450ms, 900ms, 1800ms, 3600ms, etc.). I wouldn't be against the WDIOS_TIMEINMILLI option, but milliseconds should be good enough for anyone.
-Corey
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |