Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935742AbaDJUfs (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:35:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f43.google.com ([209.85.160.43]:36660 "EHLO mail-pb0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934898AbaDJUfm (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:35:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:35:36 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: David Cohen Cc: wim@iguana.be, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: intel-mid: add watchdog platform code for Merrifield Message-ID: <20140410203536.GB25534@roeck-us.net> References: <1396990744-10695-1-git-send-email-david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> <1396990744-10695-3-git-send-email-david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> <20140410191523.GA6206@roeck-us.net> <20140410193010.GD28420@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140410193010.GD28420@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > --- > > > > 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. Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/