[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] x86: intel-mid: add watchdog platform code for Merrifield
On 04/10/2014 02:23 PM, David Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:35:36PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:30:10PM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:15:23PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:59:04PM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
>>>>> This patch adds platform code for Intel Merrifield.
>>>>> Since the watchdog is not part of SFI table, we have no other option but
>>>>> to manually register watchdog's platform device (argh!).
>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Cohen <>
>>>>> ---
>>>> Does it really make sense to have this as separate patch ?
>>>> It is quite common for watchdog (and many other) drivers to
>>>> register the driver and instantiate the device. I think it
>>>> would be better and more consistent to have both patches
>>>> merged into one.
>>> Are you talking about to merge them without code changes or make the
>>> driver responsible for the device enumeration (by make the driver to
>>> allocate the device)?
>>> If it's a simple merge, I'd say I don't like to mix drivers and arch
>>> patches.
>>> If we're talking about moving the device registration to driver, I
>>> strongly disagree it would be better and more consistent. The way I sent
>>> the driver makes it less dependent of how the enumeration happens.
>>> If this device is added to SFI table, the driver would need no change.
>> I don't see why that would be a problem. Guess we'll have to agree
>> to disagree.
> Sounds fine :)
> If you're not too much against keeping the way it is, I'd like to send
> the v2 with 2 patches again.

Not my decision to make. I am not the watchdog maintainer.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-11 01:41    [W:0.066 / U:0.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site