Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: intel-mid: add watchdog platform code for Merrifield

[David Cohen]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:35:36PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:30:10PM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:15:23PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:59:04PM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> > > > This patch adds platform code for Intel Merrifield.
> > > > Since the watchdog is not part of SFI table, we have no other option but
> > > > to manually register watchdog's platform device (argh!).
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Cohen <david.a.cohen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > Does it really make sense to have this as separate patch ? 
> > > 
> > > It is quite common for watchdog (and many other) drivers to
> > > register the driver and instantiate the device. I think it
> > > would be better and more consistent to have both patches
> > > merged into one.
> > 
> > Are you talking about to merge them without code changes or make the
> > driver responsible for the device enumeration (by make the driver to
> > allocate the device)?
> > 
> > If it's a simple merge, I'd say I don't like to mix drivers and arch
> > patches.
> > 
> > If we're talking about moving the device registration to driver, I
> > strongly disagree it would be better and more consistent. The way I sent
> > the driver makes it less dependent of how the enumeration happens.
> > If this device is added to SFI table, the driver would need no change.
> > 
> I don't see why that would be a problem. Guess we'll have to agree
> to disagree.

Sounds fine :)
If you're not too much against keeping the way it is, I'd like to send
the v2 with 2 patches again.

Br, David

> 
> Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/