From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754665Ab1K2KsY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Nov 2011 05:48:24 -0500
Received: from mailrelay005.isp.belgacom.be ([195.238.6.171]:17139 "EHLO
	mailrelay005.isp.belgacom.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753919Ab1K2KsU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Nov 2011 05:48:20 -0500
X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAKC21E5tg6dK/2dsb2JhbABDqnSBBoFyAQEFJxMcIxAIAw44FCUDIYgatzASiwwElFOJDYkG
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:44:52 +0100
From: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Marc Vertes <marc.vertes@sigfox.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
        Dimitry Andric <dimitry.andric@tomtom.com>,
        Ben Dooks <ben@simtec.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: fix nowayout setting in s3c2410_wdt
Message-ID: <20111129104452.GI23376@infomag.iguana.be>
References: <4ed026d9.TvJLr8ihQ2VtvqPD%marc.vertes@sigfox.com> <20111126102915.GA7517@pengutronix.de> <20111129095643.GH23376@infomag.iguana.be> <20111129102136.GB5455@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111129102136.GB5455@pengutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Wolfram,

> > +/* Use the following function to set the nowayout feature */
> > +static inline void watchdog_set_nowayout(struct watchdog_device *wdd, int nowayout)
> > +{
> > +	if (nowayout)
> > +		set_bit(WDOG_NO_WAY_OUT, &wdd->status);
> > +}
> 
> Yes, this is better in case we might need to add something later.
> 
> > but: .status = WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT_INIT_STATUS, is also a nice one to have.
> > 
> > I propose to add both options and to document them in the documentation.
> > Objections anyone?
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> So, I'll drop NOWAYOUT-related patches from my STMP-series?

Yes, I'll make sure we do the necessary on the nowayout side :-). Will try to add a patch for it today.
Could you resend the SMTP series after that you dropped the nowayout patches so I can review these?

Kind regards,
Wim.