linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] watchdog: mtk: allow setting timeout in devicetree

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: <1518335184.9025.43.camel@mtkswgap22>
Date:   Sun, 11 Feb 2018 15:46:24 +0800
From:   Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@...il.com>
CC:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Carlo Caione <carlo@...one.org>,
        "Kevin Hilman" <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
        Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux.tyco@...il.com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] watchdog: mtk: allow setting timeout in
 devicetree

On Sat, 2018-02-10 at 17:52 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 02/10/2018 12:12 PM, Marcus Folkesson wrote:
> > Hello Sean,
> > 
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 01:43:28PM +0100, Marcus Folkesson wrote:
> >> Hello Sean,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 07:10:02PM +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi, Marcus
> >>>
> >>> The changes you made for dt-bindings and driver should be put into
> >>> separate patches.
> >>
> >> I actually thought about it but chose to have it in the same patch because I
> >> did not see any direct advantage to separating them.
> >>
> >> But I can do that.
> >> I will come up with a v3 with this change if no one thinks differently.
> >>
> > 
> > When looking at the git log, I'm not that convinced it should be
> > separate patches.
> > 
> > For example, I found a4f741e3e157c3a5c8aea5f2ea62b692fbf17338 that is
> > doing the exact same thing as this patch.
> > 
> > There is plenty of patches that mixes the code change and dt bindings
> > updates.
> > Could it not be useful to overview both the implementation and
> > dt-mapping change in one view?
> > 
> > If you or anyone else still think it should be separated, please let me know and I will
> > come up with a v3.
> > 
> 
> If we were talking about something new, specifically new and unapproved DT bindings,
> it should be separate patches. However, that is not the case here. The DT bindings
> are well established. Sure, we could be pedantic and request a split into two
> patches. However, the only benefit of that would be more work for the maintainers,
> ie Wim and myself (including me having to send this e-mail). I don't really see
> the point of that.
> 
> I have already sent my Reviewed-by:, and I don't intend to withdraw it.
> 
Hi, both

Sorry for that if I caused any inconvenience to you. I didn't really
insist on if the patch is needed to split into two, which totally
depends on whether dt maintainers like it.

The change for dt-binding is usually added as a split patch with
dt-bindings as a prefix. This way I thought dt maintainers is not
easy to miss those patches and also can give some useful feedback
for them.

	Sean

> Thanks,
> Guenter
>