Slight interface change on the watchdog fido

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <20061210110419.H42195 at localhost>, Nick Hibma writes:

>   cognet at freebsd.org	i80321_wdog.c (*)
>(*) The i80321_wdog.c cannot be disarmed. Is this correct?

If true, then this is a poster-child for the WD_PASSIVE need, the idea
being that if userland says "I'll not pat the dog anymore" and the hardware
cannot be disabled, the kernel shoul do it.

>- If the timeout value passed is >0 and acceptable arm the watchdog and set the 
>*error to 0 (a watchdog is armed).

Agreed, the WD_ACTIVE/WD_PASSIVE shouldn't matter to the drivers.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.