On 01/24/2012 03:15 AM, andy pugh wrote: > On 24 January 2012 06:27, Sebastian Kuzminsky<[email protected]> wrote: > >> 2. The first time you call pet_watchdog() in HAL, the watchdog wakes up >> and becomes active. > Does that mean that an unpetted watchdog never bites? Fir example, if > you don't link the pet_watchdog function you can run hm2 without a > watchdog?
Yes, that's the behavior that the current hm2-watchdog branch implements. But now that you mention it, that sounds kind of stupid... > Would it make sense for the read() and write() functions to also wake > the dog? In fact, why can't read() and write() also pet it That makes some sense, but I'm think there are sensible configs where you never read and sensible configs where you never write (stepper-only machines with no home switches, using hm2 as a logic analyser maybe, using one hm2 card for inputs and another one for outputs, etc). If we get rid of the pet_watchdog() function, I think we'd have to pet in both read() and write() to cover all cases, and that'd be wasteful. I like read() and write() waking up the watchdog, but i think i want to keep pet_watchdog() to do the work. I'll update the patchset tonight and repost. Thanks for the feedback! -- Sebastian Kuzminsky ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
