On Tuesday 04 November 2014 23:41:26 Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 31/10/2014 at 22:36:55 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : > > On Friday 31 October 2014 21:57:56 Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > On 31/10/2014 at 21:50:05 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : > > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 21:45:58 Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > > > To be able to make the watchdog driver independent from the mach/ includes, pass > > > > > the system timer register space as a resource. > > > > > > > > > > Also, change the name to avoid conflicting with the at91sam9 watchdog driver. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doing this change as a separate patch breaks bisection because now the device > > > > name no longer matches untile the other patch is applied too. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I was not sure how important that was as there is no user of the > > > watchdog in the kernel. My thinking was that both patch can then go > > > through different trees. > > > > > > I can definitely squash them. > > > > AFAICT, arch/arm/configs/at91rm9200_defconfig enables the device and it > > gets registered through at91_add_standard_devices. You definitely have > > my Ack to merge the mach-at91 patch through the watchdog tree. > > > > You're right, I missed that one. I was expecting it to be called from > board files. > > So, I'll squash both patches, add your SoB and your Ack and get it > merged through the watchdog tree, tell me if that is not what you > expect. I definitely *don't* expect you to add my Signed-off-by, that would be against the procedures we have in Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Other than that, it sounds good, thanks! Arnd -- 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
