From: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@gmail.com>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>,
"Curt E. Bruns" <curt.e.bruns@intel.com>,
Peter Milne <peter.milne@d-tacq.com>,
Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.22 patch] iop: combined watchdog timer driver for iop3xx and iop13xx
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 22:18:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070506201848.GE19339@xi.wantstofly.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e9c3a7c20705061313g2b110c4ai478bd3d345de3114@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:13:58PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> Here is a new watchdog driver for your review. It supports two flavors
> >> of the iop watchdog timer. The iop13xx watchdog can be stopped while
> >> the iop3xx version cannot.
> >
> >I started reviewing this patch yesterday. First thing I noticed was that
> >you seem to be moving some code from include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/system.h
> >to include/asm-arm/arch-iop13xx/iop13xx.h .
> >This should not be part of this patch since it is touching architecture
> >dependant code for which I do not have enough knowledge about this specific
> >architecture to tell if this is indeed the correct way to do this.
> >The maintainers of this architecture should imho comment on this.
> >Could you split this patch into 2 patches: one that deals with the moving
> >of
> >the architecture dependant code (and explaining why) and one with the new
> >watchdog drivers? I will continue my review today.
>
> I am one of the maintainers of this architecture, (Lennert Buytenhek
> is the other).
Dan has done more work on iop13xx than I have, and I'm OK with his
changes.
It's true that ARM-specific changes generally should go through the ARM
tree, but IMHO sometimes it makes sense to have one patch touch both
stuff under drivers/ and stuff under arch/arm/mach-foo, especially if
the changes are dependent and cause compile breakage if applied
separately. Not sure whether that's the case here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-06 20:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-30 16:57 Dan Williams
2007-05-06 9:52 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2007-05-06 20:13 ` Dan Williams
2007-05-06 20:18 ` Lennert Buytenhek [this message]
2007-05-06 20:53 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2007-05-06 22:47 ` Dan Williams
2007-05-07 19:03 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070506201848.GE19339@xi.wantstofly.org \
--to=buytenh@wantstofly.org \
--cc=curt.e.bruns@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter.milne@d-tacq.com \
--cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®