Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] wdt: sunxi: Move restart code to the watchdog driver

Maxime Ripard
2014-06-23T15:50:07Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2169 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 07:30:56AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>The patches _are_ in my watchdog-next branch and get some coverage from
> >>both my auto-builders and from Fenguang's build robots, so while they are
> >>not in linux-next, they are not completely in the dark either.
> >
> >So, this patch finally didn't make it into 3.16. Great. Now, we can't
> >even reboot the boards.
> >
> >Given how it's just impossible to get something merged reliably
> >through the watchdog tree, I guess I should just start merging the
> >patches through mine?
> >
>
> You can not really blame Wim here.
>
> In this case, I suspect the major reason for not accepting the patch
> is that I tried to provide a clean method / API for "reset through watchdog
> subsystem", which went nowhere, in my understanding because someone objected
> that it would be the wrong thing to do [1] and it didn't get approval /
> acceptance from the arm maintainers. If it is wrong to reset the board
> from the watchdog subsystem in a clean way, it is for sure even more wrong
> to do it as you proposed in your patch.
>
> My conclusion therefore is that all board reset code should move back out
> of the watchdog subsystem, and that we should not accept such code in the
> future. This is not my personal preference, but I do believe that we should
> do it in a clean way or not at all.

Well, considering that this patch isn't depending on your reboot API
set, and that Wim never either commented on this patch, your reboot
API patchset or your pull request to say that he was not willing to
merge this, there's still a huge failure to communicate.

I'm fine with any technical reason, let's debate on that. But the
point is there has been no debate at all, only silence from his side.

I have been told some patches would be merged and I merged through my
tree some patches that were depending on this one based on that
assumption.

And now, we have a regression.

Anyway... I guess I should just revert some commits now.

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]