Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: at91: rm9200 add system timer resources to watchdog

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Tuesday 04 November 2014 23:41:26 Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 31/10/2014 at 22:36:55 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote :
> > On Friday 31 October 2014 21:57:56 Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > On 31/10/2014 at 21:50:05 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote :
> > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 21:45:58 Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > > > To be able to make the watchdog driver independent from the mach/ includes, pass
> > > > > the system timer register space as a resource.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also, change the name to avoid conflicting with the at91sam9 watchdog driver.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Doing this change as a separate patch breaks bisection because now the device
> > > > name no longer matches untile the other patch is applied too.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I was not sure how important that was as there is no user of the
> > > watchdog in the kernel. My thinking was that both patch can then go
> > > through different trees.
> > > 
> > > I can definitely squash them.
> > 
> > AFAICT, arch/arm/configs/at91rm9200_defconfig enables the device and it
> > gets registered through at91_add_standard_devices. You definitely have
> > my Ack to merge the mach-at91 patch through the watchdog tree.
> > 
> 
> You're right, I missed that one. I was expecting it to be called from
> board files.
> 
> So, I'll squash both patches, add your SoB and your Ack and get it
> merged through the watchdog tree, tell me if that is not what you
> expect.

I definitely *don't* expect you to add my Signed-off-by, that would
be against the procedures we have in Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

Other than that, it sounds good, thanks!

	Arnd