>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/