Re: [PATCH 00/13] watchdog: factorize restart handler registration

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

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:10:09PM -0500, Damien Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 10:08:18AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/03/2015 08:12 AM, Damien Riegel wrote:
> > >Many drivers implements the exact same piece of code to register a
> > >restart handler. It can be nice to factorize this in the watchdog core.
> > >
> > >The first patch adds an optional restart watchdog operation. If a driver
> > >defines this operation, a restart handler is registered. By default, the
> > >restart handler priority is set to 0, but a helper function
> > >watchdog_set_restart_priority is provided to change it.
> > >
> > >The following patches bring this change to the current watchdog drivers
> > >that use watchdog_core.
> > >
> > >This change has been compile-tested on da9063, imx2, lpc18xx, imgpdc.
> > >It has been tested with (not mainlined yet) ts-4800's watchdog driver.
> > >
> > >Damien Riegel (13):
> > >   watchdog: core: add restart handler support
> > >   watchdog: bcm47xx_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: da9063_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: digicolor_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: imgpdc_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: imx2_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: lpc18xx_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: meson_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: moxart_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: mtk_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: qcom-wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: s3c2410_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >   watchdog: sunxi_wdt: use core restart handler
> > >
> > 
> > Damien,
> > 
> > "v2" in the subject line as well as a change log would have been appreciated.
> > You are making it (hopefully not intentionally) difficult for maintainers
> > to separate v1 from v2. You might want to keep in mind that maintainers are
> > in general quite busy and might thus be a bit annoyed about such additional
> > (and unnecessary) work.
> 
> Sorry for the inconvenience, I assumed it was correct to send the
> patchset as a v1 since the previous one was a RFC. Do you want me to
> resend this serie as a v2 with a changelog ?
> 
No, that would cause even more confusion.

Thanks,
Guenter