Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <736d150c-03fe-ce39-a42e-b9b62f40a937@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 05:29:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: sp5100_tco: Add "action" module parameter
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Vladimir Panteleev <git@vladimir.panteleev.md>
Cc:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220918140829.443722-1-git@vladimir.panteleev.md>
 <aabb7c21-9a80-696e-6a38-29de57e025ba@roeck-us.net>
 <CAHhfkvw_U_uF1UFcLTBUsw=_YoM_7pi3tw3KCovTT6PZTnH0ig@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAHhfkvw_U_uF1UFcLTBUsw=_YoM_7pi3tw3KCovTT6PZTnH0ig@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/18/22 22:58, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 04:17, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/18/22 07:08, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(action, "Action taken when watchdog expires, 0 to reset, 1 to poweroff (default="
>>> +              __MODULE_STRING(WATCHDOG_ACTION) ")");
>>> +
>>
>> Other module parameters are not visible. I do not see the benefit of
>> having this one visible.
> 
> My bad
> 
>>> -#define SP5100_WDT_ACTION_RESET              BIT(2)
>>> +#define SP5100_WDT_ACTION            BIT(2)
>>
>> I do not see the point of renaming this define.
> 
> The bit is just called "action" ("WatchDogAction") in the technical
> documentation. I figure that the original author chose to name the
> define "ACTION_RESET" instead of just "ACTION" because the original
> implementation only ever cleared this bit, therefore only setting the
> action to "reset". Now that this is no longer true, calling it simply
> "action" to match the spec seemed more appropriate. What do you think?
> 

I am not getting into define name editing wars. The define is named as
it is. There is never a good reason to rename it. If I'd accept your
change, someone else might come tomorrow and want it renamed to
"SP5100_WDT_ACTION_POWEROFF" because setting the bit to 1 causes
the system to power off.

No, I am not getting into that.

Guenter