On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:05 PM Guenter Roeck [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 05:09:11PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 06:52:00AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

quoted

On 6/5/20 3:50 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:24 PM Michael Walle [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Am 2020-06-05 10:14, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:14 AM Michael Walle [off-list ref] wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+static bool nowayout = WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT;
+module_param(nowayout, bool, 0);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(nowayout, "Watchdog cannot be stopped once started
(default="
+                               __MODULE_STRING(WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT)
")");
+
+static int timeout;
+module_param(timeout, int, 0);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(timeout, "Initial watchdog timeout in seconds");

Guenter ACKed this, but I'm wondering why we still need module
parameters...

How would a user change the nowayout or the timeout? For the latter
there is
a device tree entry, but thats not easy changable by the user.

Yes, it's more question to VIm and Guenter than to you.

Has support for providing module parameters with the kernel command line
been discontinued/deprecated, or did it run out of favor ? Sorry if I
missed that.

Latter according to Greg KH. One of the (plenty) examples [1].

[1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org/msg96495.html

What is the suggested replacement ?

In some mails he suggested to use sysfs.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel