On 04/02/2015 14:59, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 02/04/2015 04:22 AM, Paul Bolle wrote: >> John Crispin schreef op wo 04-02-2015 om 12:10 [+0100]: >>> i think wim should just drop it and we leave it in openwrt with the >>> other 1/2 million patches that we have. i prefer to upstream the stuff >>> without feeling pressured to hurry up, that kills the fun. >> >> Once code is mainlined you'll get fixes written for you, updates done >> for you, etc. But you'll also get pointed at defects that require you to >> fix them yourself, or see the code removed eventually. >> >>> @Wim, can you drop the patch please ? >> >> Why should Wim drop more than the >> || SOC_MT7621 >> >> snippet? >> > > Question is if the driver works with MT7620 as advertised. Either case > it would be odd if the driver advertises itself as MT7621 but only works > for MT7620, so I think it should be dropped entirely for now. > > Wim, should I possibly ask Stephen to include my watchdog-next branch > in his -next builds ? This would help us catching such problems earlier. > > Thanks, > Guenter > > > it wont work on mt7620 but on mt7628 which is a subtype on mt7620. both share the soc_mt7620.c inside arch/mips/ralink/ we rely on runtime detection between the 2 and on the dts loading the correct driver. mt7620 and mt7628 are both hidden behind the SOC_MT7620 symbol. the depends on SOC_MT7620 part is correct and working. but i agree, just drop it, i will simply carry it around with us in openwrt. one driver more wont make a difference. John
