Re: [RFC V2 17/21] watchdog/dev: Add tracepoints

[Guenter Roeck]

On 2/17/22 09:49, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> On 17/02/2022 18:27, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 2/17/22 08:27, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > > Hi Peter
> > >
> > > On 2/16/22 17:01, Peter.Enderborg@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > On 2/14/22 11:45, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > > > > Add a set of tracepoints, enabling the observability of the watchdog
> > > > > device interactions with user-space.
> > > > >
> > > > > The events are:
> > > > >      watchdog:watchdog_open
> > > > >      watchdog:watchdog_close
> > > > >      watchdog:watchdog_start
> > > > >      watchdog:watchdog_stop
> > > > >      watchdog:watchdog_set_timeout
> > > > >      watchdog:watchdog_ping
> > > > >      watchdog:watchdog_nowayout
> > > > >      watchdog:watchdog_set_keep_alive
> > > > >      watchdog:watchdog_keep_alive
> > > >
> > > > Some watchdogs have a bark functionality, I think it should be event
> > > > for that too.
> > >
> > > I understand. The problems is that I do not see the bark abstraction
> > > in the
> > > watchdog_dev layer.
> >
> > I don't even know what "bark functionality" means. A new term for
> > pretimeout ?
> > Something else ?
>
> > From my understanding the bark timeout is actually the pretimeout
> whereas the bite timeout is the actual timeout.
> I think in the Kernel ftwdt010_wdt and qcom-wdt are bark/bite WTDs

If that is the case, I would prefer if we could stick to existing
terminology to avoid issues like "I do not see the bark abstraction".

Thanks,
Guenter