From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heinrich Schuchardt Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:29:18 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] watchdog: add watchdog behavior configuration In-Reply-To: <4098208.1601022997@gemini.denx.de> References: <20200923164527.26894-1-michael@walle.cc> <20200923164527.26894-2-michael@walle.cc> <8ba6107a460b8647@bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20200923171409.GT14816@bill-the-cat> <8070fb73-d42b-fa66-98a6-a2b9926b2d3f@gmx.de> <20200923173504.GV14816@bill-the-cat> <20200924131931.GF14816@bill-the-cat> <4098208.1601022997@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 25.09.20 10:36, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom, > > In message <20200924131931.GF14816@bill-the-cat> you wrote: >> >> I'm talking about the case where we say we've enabled the WDT to >> supervise OS, but then bootefi something and have disabled the watchdog >> (to meet UEFI requirements) but didn't tell the user we've turned off >> the WDT that we had told them is on. > > Any so-called "watchdog" that can be disabled / switched off by > software is not really woth this name. As such, the concept of > disabling a watchdog in software, is misleading at best and should > never ibe implemented. If we want to boot UEFI payloads, we will have to follow the UEFI specification even if we think it is not perfect. Best regards Heinrich > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk >