From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:00:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:54495 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27011669AbbBDOACn2xwA (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:00:02 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=roeck-us.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=aSyQrwy6XJLDH00cGCshoVgyaaQddcQ2MCWlIkfudvY=; b=pqxUZCU0zRHsLj2VT0qWZTu/J82Sdd+ZiOusbKkXq/tILjt3RcMZracTrNm5WwtcGiriWZIX5VBxDa4wmohep0P1nIHY2zOli4AGyoiwNPq3BVd54yTRVbaBSqVSsorLhmmWnEYxOQN26omto9Ft/EmkTmMxL2vebsBSt++hPB4=; Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YJ0Ul-002nKW-Ha for linux-mips@linux-mips.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:59:55 +0000 Received: from 108-223-40-66.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net ([108.223.40.66]:59721 helo=server.roeck-us.net) by bh-25.webhostbox.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YJ0Uj-002nJF-3m; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:59:53 +0000 Message-ID: <54D225D6.6040603@roeck-us.net> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 05:59:50 -0800 From: Guenter Roeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Bolle , John Crispin CC: Wim Van Sebroeck , Ralf Baechle , Valentin Rothberg , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: watchdog: SOC_MT7621? References: <1423044809.23894.65.camel@x220> <54D1F248.4090406@openwrt.org> <1423047893.23022.13.camel@x220> <54D1FE0F.3030308@openwrt.org> <1423052553.30076.6.camel@tiscali.nl> In-Reply-To: <1423052553.30076.6.camel@tiscali.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-CTCH-PVer: 0000001 X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.54D225DB.01E2,ss=1,re=0.001,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-CTCH-Score: 0.001 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: C_4847, X-CTCH-SenderID: linux@roeck-us.net X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 2 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - linux-mips.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: mailgid no entry from get_relayhosts_entry X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 45651 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: linux@roeck-us.net Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On 02/04/2015 04:22 AM, Paul Bolle wrote: > John Crispin schreef op wo 04-02-2015 om 12:10 [+0100]: >> i think wim should just drop it and we leave it in openwrt with the >> other 1/2 million patches that we have. i prefer to upstream the stuff >> without feeling pressured to hurry up, that kills the fun. > > Once code is mainlined you'll get fixes written for you, updates done > for you, etc. But you'll also get pointed at defects that require you to > fix them yourself, or see the code removed eventually. > >> @Wim, can you drop the patch please ? > > Why should Wim drop more than the > || SOC_MT7621 > > snippet? > Question is if the driver works with MT7620 as advertised. Either case it would be odd if the driver advertises itself as MT7621 but only works for MT7620, so I think it should be dropped entirely for now. Wim, should I possibly ask Stephen to include my watchdog-next branch in his -next builds ? This would help us catching such problems earlier. Thanks, Guenter