On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:45:43PM +0200, Juergen Beisert wrote:
> Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:54:02AM +0200, Juergen Beisert wrote:
> > > This patch adds a simple wd command which can setup, trigger and stop a
> > > watchdog on the platform.
> > >
> > > +static int do_wd(int argc, char *argv[])
> > > +{
> > > + int rc;
> > > +
> > > + if (argc > 1) {
> > > + if (isdigit(*argv[1])) {
> > > + timeout = simple_strtoul(argv[1], NULL, 0);
> > > + } else {
> > > + printf("numerical parameter expected\n");
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + rc = watchdog_set_timeout(timeout);
> > > + if (rc == -EINVAL) {
> >
> > Why do you check for -EINVAL only? This way all other errors will be
> > silently ignored.
>
> Are you sure we must handle other failure codes than -EINVAL here? The called
> function is very simple and only must distinguish "timeout != 0" and "timeout
> == 0". So, timeout can be "out of range" or - as you mentioned - some
> platforms cannot disable the watchdog anymore once it is enabled. Both
> results into -EINVAL, because the called function cannot use the given value.
> What else can happen?
Why should we only test for errors that we know and silently drop all others?
Somebody might think that -ENOSYS is the appropriate return value if the
watchdog can't be disabled. When such a patch is added nobody will
remember that our error handling only checks for a special error value.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
