From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261714AbTIEAsm (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:48:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261801AbTIEAsl (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:48:41 -0400 Received: from SPARCLINUX.MIT.EDU ([18.248.2.241]:46597 "EHLO sparclinux.mit.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261714AbTIEAsj (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:48:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:48:37 -0400 From: Rob Radez To: Wim Van Sebroeck Cc: Justin Cormack , Kernel mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0-test4 - Watchdog patches Message-ID: <20030905004837.GA19677@osinvestor.com> References: <20030831225236.A6938@infomag.infomag.iguana.be> <1062364509.30543.155.camel@lotte.street-vision.com> <20030903215410.F8811@infomag.infomag.iguana.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030903215410.F8811@infomag.infomag.iguana.be> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 09:54:10PM +0200, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote: > Hi Justin, > > > There is *no point* making these module parameters. There is no other > > watchdog that works in exactly the same way but using different io > > ports. If there was this still wouldnt be the sensible way to do it. > > Since I copied this part of Rob's watchdog-patch, I'll let Rob answer this one. Mostly, it was because I didn't know that there weren't any other implementations of this watchdog that might use slightly different ports. If there aren't, then my apologies for unnecessary complication of the code. Regards, Rob Radez