Hi Guenter,
> On 02/28/2016 06:07 AM, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> >>>+static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev,
> >>>unsigned t)
> >>>+{
> >>>+ /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
> >>>+ if (t > 255) {
> >>>+ /* truncate second
Hi Guenter,
> On 02/28/2016 06:07 AM, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> >>>+static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev,
> >>>unsigned t)
> >>>+{
> >>>+ /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
> >>>+ if (t > 255) {
> >>>+ /* truncate second
On 02/28/2016 06:07 AM, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
+static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev, unsigned t)
+{
+ /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
+ if (t > 255) {
+ /* truncate second resolution to minute resolution
On 02/28/2016 06:07 AM, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
+static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev, unsigned t)
+{
+ /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
+ if (t > 255) {
+ /* truncate second resolution to minute resolution
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 03:07:39PM +0100, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
>> > +static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev,
>> > unsigned t)
>> > +{
>> > + /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
>> > + if (t > 255) {
>> > + /* truncate second
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 03:07:39PM +0100, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
>> > +static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev,
>> > unsigned t)
>> > +{
>> > + /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
>> > + if (t > 255) {
>> > + /* truncate second
> > +static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev, unsigned
> > t)
> > +{
> > + /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
> > + if (t > 255) {
> > + /* truncate second resolution to minute resolution */
> > + t /= 60;
> > +
> > +static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev, unsigned
> > t)
> > +{
> > + /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
> > + if (t > 255) {
> > + /* truncate second resolution to minute resolution */
> > + t /= 60;
> > +
> > 8-bit read of 299h – save this value
> > 8-bit write of 60h to 299h
> > 16-bit read of 29ah should return the base address of the WDT which is 564h
> > 8-bit write of saved value to 299h - don’t want t accidentally change the
> > WDT base address
>
> If the system does return a value of
> > 8-bit read of 299h – save this value
> > 8-bit write of 60h to 299h
> > 16-bit read of 29ah should return the base address of the WDT which is 564h
> > 8-bit write of saved value to 299h - don’t want t accidentally change the
> > WDT base address
>
> If the system does return a value of
On 01/27/2016 04:18 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:02:45PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Unfortunately, the sensors-detect only reported "No" for each Super I/O
chip test, while the superiotool gave an unhelpful "No Super I/O chip
detected" message.
Too bad. That
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:02:45PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the sensors-detect only reported "No" for each Super I/O
>> chip test, while the superiotool gave an unhelpful "No Super I/O chip
>> detected" message.
>>
>
>Too bad. That suggests that the watchdog may in fact be
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:02:45PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the sensors-detect only reported "No" for each Super I/O
>> chip test, while the superiotool gave an unhelpful "No Super I/O chip
>> detected" message.
>>
>
>Too bad. That suggests that the watchdog may in fact be
On 01/27/2016 04:18 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:02:45PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Unfortunately, the sensors-detect only reported "No" for each Super I/O
chip test, while the superiotool gave an unhelpful "No Super I/O chip
detected" message.
Too bad. That
On 01/26/2016 03:38 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On 01/25/2016 08:26 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
The manual for this motherboard does not provide much information about
the Super I/O chip (no model number, etc.), and neither sensors-detect
nor superiotool was able to detect it. I've sent an
On 01/25/2016 08:26 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> The manual for this motherboard does not provide much information about
>> the Super I/O chip (no model number, etc.), and neither sensors-detect
>> nor superiotool was able to detect it. I've sent an email to the
>> motherboard company (WinSystems)
On 01/26/2016 06:31 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On 01/25/2016 5:11 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
+ dev_warn(dev, "Invalid timeout (%u seconds), using default (%u
seconds)\n",
+ timeout, WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT);
Multi-line alignment is off by one character.
I
On 01/25/2016 5:11 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> +dev_warn(dev, "Invalid timeout (%u seconds), using default (%u
>> seconds)\n",
>> +timeout, WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT);
>
> Multi-line alignment is off by one character.
I used tabs to align the lines to 8-character
On 01/26/2016 04:09 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On ma, 2016-01-25 at 14:09 -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
>
>> +config EBC_C386_WDT
>> +tristate "WinSystems EBC-C384 Watchdog Timer"
>> +depends on X86
>> +select
On ma, 2016-01-25 at 14:09 -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> +config EBC_C386_WDT
> + tristate "WinSystems EBC-C384 Watchdog Timer"
> + depends on X86
> + select WATCHDOG_CORE
> + help
> + Enables
On ma, 2016-01-25 at 14:09 -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> +config EBC_C386_WDT
> + tristate "WinSystems EBC-C384 Watchdog Timer"
> + depends on X86
> + select WATCHDOG_CORE
> + help
> + Enables
On 01/26/2016 03:38 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On 01/25/2016 08:26 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
The manual for this motherboard does not provide much information about
the Super I/O chip (no model number, etc.), and neither sensors-detect
nor superiotool was able to detect it. I've sent an
On 01/25/2016 5:11 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> +dev_warn(dev, "Invalid timeout (%u seconds), using default (%u
>> seconds)\n",
>> +timeout, WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT);
>
> Multi-line alignment is off by one character.
I used tabs to align the lines to 8-character
On 01/26/2016 06:31 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On 01/25/2016 5:11 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
+ dev_warn(dev, "Invalid timeout (%u seconds), using default (%u
seconds)\n",
+ timeout, WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT);
Multi-line alignment is off by one character.
I
On 01/25/2016 08:26 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> The manual for this motherboard does not provide much information about
>> the Super I/O chip (no model number, etc.), and neither sensors-detect
>> nor superiotool was able to detect it. I've sent an email to the
>> motherboard company (WinSystems)
On 01/26/2016 04:09 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On ma, 2016-01-25 at 14:09 -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
>
>> +config EBC_C386_WDT
>> +tristate "WinSystems EBC-C384 Watchdog Timer"
>> +depends on X86
>> +select
On 01/25/2016 03:36 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On 01/25/2016 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 01/25/2016 11:28 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
If ask for 299 seconds surely I should get 300 not 240 ?
(Whether to round off or round up is an interesting question for the
middle range -
On 01/25/2016 03:36 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On 01/25/2016 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 01/25/2016 11:28 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
If ask for 299 seconds surely I should get 300 not 240 ?
(Whether to round off or round up is an interesting question for the
middle range -
On 01/25/2016 11:09 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
The WinSystems EBC-C384 has an onboard watchdog timer. The timeout range
supported by the watchdog timer is 1 second to 255 minutes. Timeouts
under 256 seconds have a 1 second resolution, while the rest have a 1
minute resolution.
This
On 01/25/2016 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 01/25/2016 11:28 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> If ask for 299 seconds surely I should get 300 not 240 ?
>> (Whether to round off or round up is an interesting question for the
>> middle range - does it go off early or late - I'd have said late
On 01/25/2016 11:28 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
+static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev, unsigned t)
+{
+ /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
+ if (t > 255) {
+ /* truncate second resolution to minute
> +static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev, unsigned t)
> +{
> + /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
> + if (t > 255) {
> + /* truncate second resolution to minute resolution */
> + t /= 60;
> +
The WinSystems EBC-C384 has an onboard watchdog timer. The timeout range
supported by the watchdog timer is 1 second to 255 minutes. Timeouts
under 256 seconds have a 1 second resolution, while the rest have a 1
minute resolution.
This driver adds watchdog timer support for this onboard watchdog
> +static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev, unsigned t)
> +{
> + /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
> + if (t > 255) {
> + /* truncate second resolution to minute resolution */
> + t /= 60;
> +
On 01/25/2016 11:28 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
+static int ebc_c384_wdt_set_timeout(struct watchdog_device *wdev, unsigned t)
+{
+ /* resolution is in minutes for timeouts greater than 255 seconds */
+ if (t > 255) {
+ /* truncate second resolution to minute
On 01/25/2016 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 01/25/2016 11:28 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> If ask for 299 seconds surely I should get 300 not 240 ?
>> (Whether to round off or round up is an interesting question for the
>> middle range - does it go off early or late - I'd have said late
The WinSystems EBC-C384 has an onboard watchdog timer. The timeout range
supported by the watchdog timer is 1 second to 255 minutes. Timeouts
under 256 seconds have a 1 second resolution, while the rest have a 1
minute resolution.
This driver adds watchdog timer support for this onboard watchdog
On 01/25/2016 03:36 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On 01/25/2016 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 01/25/2016 11:28 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
If ask for 299 seconds surely I should get 300 not 240 ?
(Whether to round off or round up is an interesting question for the
middle range -
On 01/25/2016 03:36 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
On 01/25/2016 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 01/25/2016 11:28 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
If ask for 299 seconds surely I should get 300 not 240 ?
(Whether to round off or round up is an interesting question for the
middle range -
On 01/25/2016 11:09 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
The WinSystems EBC-C384 has an onboard watchdog timer. The timeout range
supported by the watchdog timer is 1 second to 255 minutes. Timeouts
under 256 seconds have a 1 second resolution, while the rest have a 1
minute resolution.
This
40 matches
Mail list logo
