From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:39643 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932281AbbBDOAG (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:00:06 -0500 Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YJ0Uv-002ncY-Jh for linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:00:06 +0000 Message-ID: <54D225D6.6040603@roeck-us.net> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 05:59:50 -0800 From: Guenter Roeck 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 Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org 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