On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:13:50PM -0400, Natarajan Gurumoorthy wrote: > Guenter, > How would you partition it out? Are you suggesting that we do > the following: > > Patch1: > drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 1 + > drivers/hwmon/it87.c | 14 ++++++++++++- > > Patch2: > drivers/watchdog/Kconfig | 12 +++++++++++ > drivers/watchdog/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/watchdog/it8712f_wdt.c | 10 ++++---- > drivers/watchdog/it87_lock.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/watchdog/it87_wdt.c | 42 ++++++--------------------------------- > > Patch3: > include/linux/it87_lock.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > No, not really. The include file is part of the locking code, and the sequence is wrong. I personally would introduce the lock in the 1st patch. This would affect drivers/watchdog/it87_lock.c include/linux/it87_lock.h drivers/watchdog/Makefile drivers/watchdog/Kconfig The second patch would update the watchdog driver, affecting drivers/watchdog/Kconfig drivers/watchdog/it8712f_wdt.c and the last patch would update the hwmon driver. drivers/hwmon/Kconfig drivers/hwmon/it87.c Others may argue that patch 1 and 2 (introducing the lock and updating the watchdog driver) should be in a single patch, since the lock alone does not do anything without being used. This is a matter of opinion and really depends on the maintainer of the watchdog subsystem. Note that your patch has practical problems. If I disable WATCHDOG but enable the IT87 hwmon driver, I get: warning: (SENSORS_IT87) selects IT87_LOCK which has unmet direct dependencies (WATCHDOG) during configuration, and undefined references to it87_io_lock when linking. So it looks like you might want to consider moving the locking code to a location outside the watchdog code. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
