Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] watchdog: bcm281xx: Watchdog Driver

[Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>]

Hi Markus,

> Now I have a question (or rather a comment) of my own. I noticed that
> you "squashed" my two original patches into a single patch before
> breaking out the debugfs related code. The side-effect of this was
> that two lines of my bcm_defconfig change (CONFIG_WATCHDOG=y and
> CONFIG_BCM_KONA_WDT=y) were included in the patch you took into
> linux-watchdog-next.
> 
> If I understand correctly (and this is why I had broken out the
> bcm_defconfig change into a separate patch), a defconfig change would
> normally go through the platform maintainer's tree, in this case
> Christian, whereas the actual driver would go upstream through your
> tree.
> 
> I don't think it makes too much of a difference with regards to this
> driver where the defconfig change goes. In fact, taking it all through
> one tree might even be slightly easier and reduce the chance of
> conflicts, but I still think Christian needs to at least be aware of
> this change going through the watchdog tree. He owns bcm_defconfig,
> after all.

If it is an existing driver then it makes sense to go through the platform
maintainer's tree. If it is a new driver then I prefer to keep it as one
patch. Suppose the defconfig stuff get's in via the platform tree and I
don't sent the watchdog driver; would be an annoying situation in my opinion...
So that's why I prefer it as a single patch.

Kind regards,
Wim.