Re: Additional patches in my watchdog-next branch

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

Hi Wim,

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 08:21:08AM +0100, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0100, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> > > Hi Guenter,
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 04:27:11PM +0100, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> > > > > Hi Guneter,
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I have a number of patches pending in my watchdog-next branch which are not
> > > > > > in your watchdog-next repository. Below is a summary, rebased onto your
> > > > > > repository. This does not include the patches I had submitted.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please consider those patches for v4.5.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm still working on those. Will be for this evening. I left those because they are all new drivers. I wanted to have all fixes and other patches first.
> > > > > So not finished yet :-) I will also add your dev fixes (V2 patchset containing 5 patches).
> > > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > No problem. I think we now have all patches that should go in for v4.5 .
> > > 
> > > There is off course still other stuff that I need to look at:
> > > SBSA, pretimeout, bcm63xx, stmp3xxx GETBOOTSTATUS (although I have the impression that this patch is a dead end because you cannot really tell what the reboot reason is with the patch), soft timer's moving into the core, mei watchdog code, ...
> > Hi Wim,
> > 
> > I'll have to look into those again as well. Most will now conflict
> > with the new watchdog core code.
> > 
> > Any thoughts on the other patch series I sent out, to create the watchdog
> > device in watchdog_dev.c, and to handle reference counting in the watchdog
> > core ? That would be a prerequisite for me to rebase (and rework) the soft
> > timer handling core. I had hoped that the changes to handle reference
> > counting in the core could make it into 4.5.
> 
> Need to review this 6-part patchset still. But probably still possible for 4.5 .

That would be great.

> The soft-timer patches are also 4.6 at the earliest.
> 
Absolutely agree. I'll have to rebase and retest the code.

Thanks,
Guenter

> Kind regards,
> Wim.
>