On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:33:46 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 05:57 -0400, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Add support for the watchdog integrated into the (Fujitsu Theseus version of) > > the sch5636 superio hwmon part. Using the new watchdog timer core. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/hwmon/sch5636.c | 233 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > [ resent to proper thread ] > > Given that this is no longer a pure hwmon driver, it may make sense to > split it into separate mfd/hwmon/watchdog drivers. But on the other side > I notice that other drivers in the hwmon directory implement watchdog > functionality as well. Bad precedent :(. IIRC the first driver doing this was one of the FSC drivers and this was before the MFD framework was created. It was simply never migrated, and other drivers followed the trend. > Wonder what happens with those watchdogs if HWMON is disabled. Then the watchdog feature isn't available. The idea as I understand it is that hardware monitoring is the main feature of these chips and watchdog is only an add-on, so we don't expect the user to want the watchdog feature without the hardware monitoring feature. > Not really sure if we should let this happen, or start being more > restrictive and enforce cleaner code. Jean, any thoughts/comments ? I have no objection to merging the code as is, as you found out it's not doing anything other drivers haven't already. If anybody cares, that person can clean up one or more drivers, later. That being said, at least for I2C devices, I don't mind leaving things as they are, as doing things "better" means more complex code for very little benefit. For Super-I/O chips which are multifunction by nature, the MFD framework is certainly the right way to go. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
