linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: intel-mid: add watchdog platform code for Merrifield

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140410203536.GB25534@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:35:36 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	wim@...ana.be, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: intel-mid: add watchdog platform code for
 Merrifield

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:30:10PM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:15:23PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:59:04PM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> > > This patch adds platform code for Intel Merrifield.
> > > Since the watchdog is not part of SFI table, we have no other option but
> > > to manually register watchdog's platform device (argh!).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Does it really make sense to have this as separate patch ? 
> > 
> > It is quite common for watchdog (and many other) drivers to
> > register the driver and instantiate the device. I think it
> > would be better and more consistent to have both patches
> > merged into one.
> 
> Are you talking about to merge them without code changes or make the
> driver responsible for the device enumeration (by make the driver to
> allocate the device)?
> 
> If it's a simple merge, I'd say I don't like to mix drivers and arch
> patches.
> 
> If we're talking about moving the device registration to driver, I
> strongly disagree it would be better and more consistent. The way I sent
> the driver makes it less dependent of how the enumeration happens.
> If this device is added to SFI table, the driver would need no change.
> 
I don't see why that would be a problem. Guess we'll have to agree
to disagree.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/