On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 08:51:41AM +0300, Weil, Oren jer wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:53:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> I still think this should be a regular watchdog driver using the > >> drivers/watchdog user interface. > > > >I agree, Oren, if you are going to insist on doing things this way, you had > >better describe _why_ you are ignoring the existing kernel interfaces > >provided. > > we are not going to ignore the existing interfaces, it is one of our items > in the TODO list. Like I stated earlier, there was no TODO list in your patch, so how could we know this? :) > You can see the we move all of the Watchdog code to a single file so it > would easy to us to take it later to other driver. > Another Item on our TODO list is to expose Kernel function that equivalent > to user interface so kernel clients can access FW features/clients. Nice, but again, how could we know this? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
