With recent changes to the watchdog recipe, there are now separate packages, one which starts "watchdog" and the other which starts "wd_keepalive". At least on my hardware (an i.MX6 plus an external watchdog), these are self conflicting. If the "watchdog" process starts first, the "wd_keepalive" process fails because it gets EBUSY when it tries to open the watchdog device (since both processes use the same config file) and vice-versa. I've proven that either of these by itself is sufficient (again, only tested on my hardware) and before these changes I was only running the 'wd_keepalive' program via a target-specific, ad hoc, startup.
So, which should it be? I don't think it can be both as is current. Am I missing something? A couple of other comments: * The recent changes moved these startup actions into run level 01 (I use sysvinit) which is way too late for my hardware. I've always needed to run it at the earliest point in the boot, normally in run level 'S' at a very high priority (low index like 05) * The actual watchdog 'ping' interval in the config file doesn't seem to match the documentation. I set it to 2 and I get a ping frequency of 10Hz (20 changes per second), as opposed to 4Hz which would be 2 seconds per change. I'll be investigating this further and may propose some patches. Thanks for your time -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------ -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
