Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] watchdog: omap: several cleanups

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

Hi Uwe,

On 07/31/2015 02:33 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:18:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 07:59:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:35:02AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:22:57AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>>>> this is v2 of the series I sent on Friday. The changes to the patches
>>>>> are documented in the respective mails. Thanks to Felipe Balbi and
>>>>> Guenter Roeck for the feedback. I added Reviewed-by tags for Guenter who
>>>>> didn't even saw these patches up to now (but who gave a carte blanche).
>>>>> I assume that's ok and as intended, Guenter?
>>>> Patches 1 to 5 got positive feedback, Wim, do you intend to take them
>>>> for the next merge window?
>>> gentle ping!
>>>
>> The patches have been in my watchdog-next branch for a while.
>> I sent a pull request to Wim a minute ago, to help him decide.
>
> I didn't hear anything back since this pull request and in the meantime
> other patches entered, with b2102eb36e7909c779e46f66595fda75aa219f4c
> being conceptual similar to my patch 6. Also I think adding
> omap_wdt_start directly after pm_runtime_put_sync is suboptimal?!
>

I see five of your patches upstream. The only one missing is patch #6,
which should be addressed (at least for the most part) with the patch
referenced above. Is there anything else missing ?

Not sure I can follow your comment regarding omap_wdt_start() and pm_runtime_put_sync().
Do you think the watchdog should be enabled earlier ? If so, feel free to submit
a patch. You'd have to be careful with pm handling, though, since omap_wdt_start()
calls pm_runtime_get_sync().

Thanks,
Guenter