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-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
