From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:43744 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750877AbbGaKEd (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:04:33 -0400 Message-ID: <55BB482C.90801@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:04:28 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?windows-1252?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Wim Van Sebroeck CC: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi , Lokesh Vutla , kernel@pengutronix.de, Lars Poeschel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] watchdog: omap: several cleanups References: <1430126581-24946-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20150508073502.GL12671@pengutronix.de> <20150522175923.GK24769@pengutronix.de> <20150522191810.GA23701@roeck-us.net> <20150731093310.GU15360@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <20150731093310.GU15360@pengutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org 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