Hello Guenter, On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:04:28AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 07/31/2015 02:33 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >Hello, > > > >On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:18:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 07:59:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >>>On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:35:02AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >>>>Hello, > >>>> > >>>>On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:22:57AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >>>>>this is v2 of the series I sent on Friday. The changes to the patches > >>>>>are documented in the respective mails. Thanks to Felipe Balbi and > >>>>>Guenter Roeck for the feedback. I added Reviewed-by tags for Guenter who > >>>>>didn't even saw these patches up to now (but who gave a carte blanche). > >>>>>I assume that's ok and as intended, Guenter? > >>>>Patches 1 to 5 got positive feedback, Wim, do you intend to take them > >>>>for the next merge window? > >>>gentle ping! > >>> > >>The patches have been in my watchdog-next branch for a while. > >>I sent a pull request to Wim a minute ago, to help him decide. > > > >I didn't hear anything back since this pull request and in the meantime > >other patches entered, with b2102eb36e7909c779e46f66595fda75aa219f4c > >being conceptual similar to my patch 6. Also I think adding > >omap_wdt_start directly after pm_runtime_put_sync is suboptimal?! > > > > I see five of your patches upstream. The only one missing is patch #6, > which should be addressed (at least for the most part) with the patch > referenced above. Is there anything else missing ? You're right. I cannot reconstruct which command convinced me before that the whole series is missing. I guess PEBKAC. Thanks. > Not sure I can follow your comment regarding omap_wdt_start() and pm_runtime_put_sync(). > Do you think the watchdog should be enabled earlier ? If so, feel free to submit > a patch. You'd have to be careful with pm handling, though, since omap_wdt_start() > calls pm_runtime_get_sync(). I admit I'm not fluent with that runtime pm stuff. But it looks wrong to me to have: omap_wdt_disable(wdev); [...] pm_runtime_put_sync(wdev->dev); if (early_enable) omap_wdt_start(&wdev->wdog); And AFAIU pm_runtime_get and .._put are like references, so moving the omap_wdt_start shouldn't hurt?! The only (positive!) effect is that the call to pm_runtime_idle isn't done just to be reversed by pm_runtime_resume as triggered by pm_runtime_get_sync. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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
