On 31/10/2014 at 22:36:55 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : > On Friday 31 October 2014 21:57:56 Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 31/10/2014 at 21:50:05 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 21:45:58 Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > > To be able to make the watchdog driver independent from the mach/ > > > > includes, pass > > > > the system timer register space as a resource. > > > > > > > > Also, change the name to avoid conflicting with the at91sam9 watchdog > > > > driver. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Doing this change as a separate patch breaks bisection because now the > > > device > > > name no longer matches untile the other patch is applied too. > > > > > > > Yeah, I was not sure how important that was as there is no user of the > > watchdog in the kernel. My thinking was that both patch can then go > > through different trees. > > > > I can definitely squash them. > > AFAICT, arch/arm/configs/at91rm9200_defconfig enables the device and it > gets registered through at91_add_standard_devices. You definitely have > my Ack to merge the mach-at91 patch through the watchdog tree. >
You're right, I missed that one. I was expecting it to be called from board files. So, I'll squash both patches, add your SoB and your Ack and get it merged through the watchdog tree, tell me if that is not what you expect. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
