Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-13 Thread Radu Rendec
On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 12:54 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:15:59PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestion! That makes sense. I will start working on > > converting i6300esb and submit a patch in a few days. > > > > By the way, I don't have the hardware.

Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-13 Thread Radu Rendec
On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 12:54 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:15:59PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestion! That makes sense. I will start working on > > converting i6300esb and submit a patch in a few days. > > > > By the way, I don't have the hardware.

Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-12 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:15:59PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 11:46 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > > > In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate > > > both the i6300esb and softdog

Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-12 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:15:59PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 11:46 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > > > In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate > > > both the i6300esb and softdog

Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-12 Thread Radu Rendec
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 11:46 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > > In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate > > both the i6300esb and softdog watchdogs. We always activate i6300esb > > first (which uses the

Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-12 Thread Radu Rendec
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 11:46 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > > In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate > > both the i6300esb and softdog watchdogs. We always activate i6300esb > > first (which uses the

Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-11 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > Hello, > > In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate > both the i6300esb and softdog watchdogs. We always activate i6300esb > first (which uses the "legacy" watchdog API) and then softdog. This > gets us

Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-11 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote: > Hello, > > In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate > both the i6300esb and softdog watchdogs. We always activate i6300esb > first (which uses the "legacy" watchdog API) and then softdog. This > gets us

Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-11 Thread Radu Rendec
Hello, In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate both the i6300esb and softdog watchdogs. We always activate i6300esb first (which uses the "legacy" watchdog API) and then softdog. This gets us two "error" level messages (coming from watchdog_cdev_register) although

Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

2017-10-11 Thread Radu Rendec
Hello, In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate both the i6300esb and softdog watchdogs. We always activate i6300esb first (which uses the "legacy" watchdog API) and then softdog. This gets us two "error" level messages (coming from watchdog_cdev_register) although