From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] watchdog: sam9x60_wdt: introduce sam9x60 watchdog timer driver Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 05:36:38 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1570001371-8174-1-git-send-email-eugen.hristev@microchip.com> <1570001371-8174-2-git-send-email-eugen.hristev@microchip.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.or Cc: wim@linux-watchdog.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com, alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/7/19 12:58 AM, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote: [ ... ] > Hello Guenter, > > Thank you for the feedback. > After reviewing this, can you please guide me towards one of the > possible two directions: merge this driver with sama5d4_wdt , and have a > single driver with support for both hardware blocks; or, have this > driver separately , as in this patch series? > I noticed the similarities. I don't know if it makes sense to reconcile the two drivers; it seems to me the new chip uses the same basic core with enhancements. In general, I prefer a single driver, but only if the result doesn't end up being an if/else mess. Ultimately, it is really your call to make. Guenter