From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:47564 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993307AbcBTASl (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:18:41 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] watchdog: ni9x3x_wdt: Add NI 903x/913x watchdog driver To: Kyle Roeschley References: <1455837991-9704-1-git-send-email-kyle.roeschley@ni.com> <56C6A7A9.7090105@roeck-us.net> <20160219171222.GA2072@senary> Cc: david.madden@ni.com, joshc@ni.com, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, wim@iguana.be From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <56C7B0DE.7070605@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:18:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160219171222.GA2072@senary> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org On 02/19/2016 09:12 AM, Kyle Roeschley wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:27:05PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 02/18/2016 03:26 PM, Kyle Roeschley wrote: >>> Add support for the watchdog timer on NI cRIO-903x and cDAQ-913x real- >>> time controllers. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Westfahl >>> Signed-off-by: Kyle Roeschley >>> --- >> >> This would be an optimal place for a change log. >> >> [ if any of my comments are duplicates, sorry, but a change log >> would help avoiding that ] >> > > Sorry about that, I'll make sure to do so in the future. > >>> Documentation/watchdog/watchdog-parameters.txt | 5 + >>> drivers/watchdog/Kconfig | 11 + >>> drivers/watchdog/Makefile | 1 + >>> drivers/watchdog/ni9x3x_wdt.c | 274 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> The name and context make me wonder: Is this driver going to support >> all watchdog devices for NI9[0-9]3[0-9] ? >> >> If not, it may be better to select one supported device, >> whatever that may be, for the name, and describe in Kconfig >> and the documentation which devices the driver is known to support. >> > > All of the 9[2-9]3[0-9] devices but the 963x do not and cannot run Linux, > so they won't be a problem. There is already a driver for the 963x watchdog in > our tree which is currently third in line for upstreaming, so that should be > fine as well. That would lead me to think 9x3x is fine, but if not then 903x is > fine. > Please use 903x, if you don't mind. After all, 9x3x _does_ include 963x and is thus misleading. Thanks, Guenter