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: <5449674d-2812-c9b5-9c06-af2fbfa72737@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:52:49 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@...il.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.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 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.

Thanks,
Guenter