From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:52013 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759259AbaDJWv6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:51:58 -0400 Message-ID: <5347208A.6000202@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:51:54 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Cohen CC: wim@iguana.be, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: intel-mid: add watchdog platform code for Merrifield References: <1396990744-10695-1-git-send-email-david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> <1396990744-10695-3-git-send-email-david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> <20140410191523.GA6206@roeck-us.net> <20140410193010.GD28420@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> <20140410203536.GB25534@roeck-us.net> <20140410212352.GE28420@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20140410212352.GE28420@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org 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. Guenter