Hi Dan,
> Here is a new watchdog driver for your review. It supports two flavors
> of the iop watchdog timer. The iop13xx watchdog can be stopped while
> the iop3xx version cannot.
I started reviewing this patch yesterday. First thing I noticed was that
you seem to be moving some code from include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/system.h
to include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/iop13xx.h .
This should not be part of this patch since it is touching architecture
dependant code for which I do not have enough knowledge about this specific
architecture to tell if this is indeed the correct way to do this.
The maintainers of this architecture should imho comment on this.
Could you split this patch into 2 patches: one that deals with the moving of
the architecture dependant code (and explaining why) and one with the new
watchdog drivers? I will continue my review today.
Thanks,
Wim.
On 5/6/07, Wim Van Sebroeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> > Here is a new watchdog driver for your review. It supports two flavors
> > of the iop watchdog timer. The iop13xx watchdog can be stopped while
> > the iop3xx version cannot.
>
> I started reviewing this patch yesterday. First thing I noticed was that
> you seem to be moving some code from include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/system.h
> to include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/iop13xx.h .
> This should not be part of this patch since it is touching architecture
> dependant code for which I do not have enough knowledge about this specific
> architecture to tell if this is indeed the correct way to do this.
> The maintainers of this architecture should imho comment on this.
> Could you split this patch into 2 patches: one that deals with the moving of
> the architecture dependant code (and explaining why) and one with the new
> watchdog drivers? I will continue my review today.
>
I am one of the maintainers of this architecture, (Lennert Buytenhek
is the other). I will go ahead and split this up so you can sign-off
on the watchdog specific bits. The intent is to move all hardware
definitions under #include <asm/hardware.h>. You are right this
should have been a separate patch.
> Thanks,
> Wim.
>
Thanks for your help,
Dan
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:13:58PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> Here is a new watchdog driver for your review. It supports two flavors
> >> of the iop watchdog timer. The iop13xx watchdog can be stopped while
> >> the iop3xx version cannot.
> >
> >I started reviewing this patch yesterday. First thing I noticed was that
> >you seem to be moving some code from include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/system.h
> >to include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/iop13xx.h .
> >This should not be part of this patch since it is touching architecture
> >dependant code for which I do not have enough knowledge about this specific
> >architecture to tell if this is indeed the correct way to do this.
> >The maintainers of this architecture should imho comment on this.
> >Could you split this patch into 2 patches: one that deals with the moving
> >of
> >the architecture dependant code (and explaining why) and one with the new
> >watchdog drivers? I will continue my review today.
>
> I am one of the maintainers of this architecture, (Lennert Buytenhek
> is the other).
Dan has done more work on iop13xx than I have, and I'm OK with his
changes.
It's true that ARM-specific changes generally should go through the ARM
tree, but IMHO sometimes it makes sense to have one patch touch both
stuff under drivers/ and stuff under arch/arm/mach-foo, especially if
the changes are dependent and cause compile breakage if applied
separately. Not sure whether that's the case here.
Hi Dan,
> >Could you split this patch into 2 patches: one that deals with the moving
> >of
> >the architecture dependant code (and explaining why) and one with the new
> >watchdog drivers? I will continue my review today.
> >
>
> I am one of the maintainers of this architecture, (Lennert Buytenhek
> is the other). I will go ahead and split this up so you can sign-off
> on the watchdog specific bits. The intent is to move all hardware
> definitions under #include <asm/hardware.h>. You are right this
> should have been a separate patch.
I reviewed the rest of the code. Looks OK to me. One small remark though:
Can we change the ifdef's in the code as described in section 2 point 2 of
the Documentation/SubmittingPatches document?
Thanks,
Wim.
On 5/6/07, Wim Van Sebroeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> > >Could you split this patch into 2 patches: one that deals with the moving
> > >of
> > >the architecture dependant code (and explaining why) and one with the new
> > >watchdog drivers? I will continue my review today.
> > >
> >
> > I am one of the maintainers of this architecture, (Lennert Buytenhek
> > is the other). I will go ahead and split this up so you can sign-off
> > on the watchdog specific bits. The intent is to move all hardware
> > definitions under #include <asm/hardware.h>. You are right this
> > should have been a separate patch.
>
> I reviewed the rest of the code. Looks OK to me. One small remark though:
> Can we change the ifdef's in the code as described in section 2 point 2 of
> the Documentation/SubmittingPatches document?
>
Ok, I can add this cleanup.
Barring any objections I'll go ahead and submit the revised patch with
an "Acked-by: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim at iguana dot be>" to Russell's
ARM patch tracker.
> Thanks,
> Wim.
>
Dan
Hi Dan,
> Barring any objections I'll go ahead and submit the revised patch with
> an "Acked-by: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim at iguana dot be>" to Russell's
> ARM patch tracker.
Fine by me.
Greetings,
Wim.