Hi,
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 01:01:12PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 at 22:28:45 +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote :
> > Since turning on idle-halt in commit 5161b31dc39a (watchdog:
> > at91sam9_wdt: better watchdog support"), SoCs compatible with
> > at91sam9260-wdt not using a device tree no longer reboot if the watchdog
> > times out while the CPU is in idle state. Removing the
> > AT91_WDT_WDIDLEHLT flag that was set by default fixes this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sylvain Rochet <[email protected]>
> > Fixes: 5161b31dc39a ("watchdog: at91sam9_wdt: better watchdog support")
> > Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.14+
>
> Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni <[email protected]>
>
> However, we don't really care about that for kernels after 3.18 as no
> users are using pdata anymore.
> I think you could send a follow-up patch removing pdata support
> completely.
Looks like this one falls through the cracks, it didn't reach mainline
and therefore wasn't applied to stable branches.
I just checked, it still apply properly on today's linux-next branch.
Cheers,
Sylvain
On 10/16/2016 08:33 AM, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 01:01:12PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> On 06/10/2015 at 22:28:45 +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote :
>>> Since turning on idle-halt in commit 5161b31dc39a (watchdog:
>>> at91sam9_wdt: better watchdog support"), SoCs compatible with
>>> at91sam9260-wdt not using a device tree no longer reboot if the watchdog
>>> times out while the CPU is in idle state. Removing the
>>> AT91_WDT_WDIDLEHLT flag that was set by default fixes this.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sylvain Rochet <[email protected]>
>>> Fixes: 5161b31dc39a ("watchdog: at91sam9_wdt: better watchdog support")
>>> Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.14+
>>
>> Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni <[email protected]>
>>
>> However, we don't really care about that for kernels after 3.18 as no
>> users are using pdata anymore.
>> I think you could send a follow-up patch removing pdata support
>> completely.
>
> Looks like this one falls through the cracks, it didn't reach mainline
> and therefore wasn't applied to stable branches.
>
Possibly that happened because you did not copy the watchdog mailing list.
Guenter
> I just checked, it still apply properly on today's linux-next branch.
>
> Cheers,
> Sylvain
>
On 10/16/2016 08:50 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 10/16/2016 08:33 AM, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 01:01:12PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2015 at 22:28:45 +0200, Sylvain Rochet wrote :
>>>> Since turning on idle-halt in commit 5161b31dc39a (watchdog:
>>>> at91sam9_wdt: better watchdog support"), SoCs compatible with
>>>> at91sam9260-wdt not using a device tree no longer reboot if the watchdog
>>>> times out while the CPU is in idle state. Removing the
>>>> AT91_WDT_WDIDLEHLT flag that was set by default fixes this.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sylvain Rochet <[email protected]>
>>>> Fixes: 5161b31dc39a ("watchdog: at91sam9_wdt: better watchdog support")
>>>> Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.14+
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> However, we don't really care about that for kernels after 3.18 as no
>>> users are using pdata anymore.
>>> I think you could send a follow-up patch removing pdata support
>>> completely.
>>
>> Looks like this one falls through the cracks, it didn't reach mainline
>> and therefore wasn't applied to stable branches.
>>
> Possibly that happened because you did not copy the watchdog mailing list.
>
... and your other patches were not sent to the watchdog mailing list either,
so you should not expect them to be picked up either.
Seriously, how do you expect _any_ patch to be picked up if you neither copy
the subsystem mailing list nor the subsystem maintainer ?
Guenter
Hi Guenter,
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 08:55:41AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 10/16/2016 08:50 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 10/16/2016 08:33 AM, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks like this one falls through the cracks, it didn't reach mainline
> > > and therefore wasn't applied to stable branches.
> >
> > Possibly that happened because you did not copy the watchdog mailing list.
>
> ... and your other patches were not sent to the watchdog mailing list either,
> so you should not expect them to be picked up either.
>
> Seriously, how do you expect _any_ patch to be picked up if you neither copy
> the subsystem mailing list nor the subsystem maintainer ?
Whoops, thanks for the heads up, I wonder how I managed to mess up that
at that time, I usually take care of that. The other series need
respinning anyway so I can fix it for v2 (if any).
Cheers,
Sylvain