On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:58:24AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Ah, I missed the "n" in various #ifndef statements. > > I can't really comment on how to solve that; I simply don't know. > Also, even with a dt property, it still would be necessary to have > a non-DT means to configure one or the other. Making whatever solution > backward compatible also seems tricky; I don't have a solution for that > problem either. How does one do these things in a non-dt context? Platform data? I'd let the MFD select the 'mode'. Maybe being backwards compatible isn't possible in any case. Is there a rule somewhere that we guarantee you'll never have to change your CONFIG_FOO options? > > > > > The idea was to fix what's broken currently (this patchset) and then refactor. > > > > But if you prefer I can do all in one go instead. > > > > > > > > > > It just seemed a waste to me to change/fix a function which is going to > > > be removed in a subsequent patch (I seem to recall that there was a fix > > > to the ioctl function). > > > > > > > I'd say that it depends on whether you want to backport the fixes to the > > stable kernels. Backporting the full rework is probably riskier. I suck at communicating these days. But yeah. That was basically my concern when I split it up into 'Fixes' and 'Rework'. Mostly since the rework might take a couple of rounds of review, while the fix can unbrick stuff (might still need review of course) Cheers, Moritz -- 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
