From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@gmail.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Carlo Caione <carlo@caione.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>,
Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux.tyco@gmail.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] watchdog: mtk: allow setting timeout in devicetree
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:52:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5449674d-2812-c9b5-9c06-af2fbfa72737@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180210201207.GC744@gmail.com>
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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Guenter Roeck <linux-0h96xk9xTtrk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Marcus Folkesson
<marcus.folkesson-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim-IQzOog9fTRqzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Carlo Caione <carlo-KA+7E9HrN00dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman-rdvid1DuHRBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
Matthias Brugger
<matthias.bgg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Barry Song <baohua-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens-jdAy2FN1RRM@public.gmane.org>,
Linus Walleij
<linus.walleij-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz-ChpfBGZJDbMAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Sylvain Lemieux
<slemieux.tyco-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Nicolas Ferre
<nicolas.ferre-UWL1GkI3JZL3oGB3hsPCZA@public.gmane.org>,
Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-watchdog-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
linux-amlogic-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] watchdog: mtk: allow setting timeout in devicetree
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:52:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5449674d-2812-c9b5-9c06-af2fbfa72737@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180210201207.GC744-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 5/7] watchdog: mtk: allow setting timeout in devicetree
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:52:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5449674d-2812-c9b5-9c06-af2fbfa72737@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180210201207.GC744@gmail.com>
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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck)
To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 5/7] watchdog: mtk: allow setting timeout in devicetree
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:52:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5449674d-2812-c9b5-9c06-af2fbfa72737@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180210201207.GC744@gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-11 1:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-10 9:19 [PATCH v2 1/7] watchdog: sama5d4: make use of timeout-secs provided in devicetree Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] watchdog: sunxi: allow setting timeout " Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] watchdog: sirfsoc: " Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] watchdog: pnx4008: make use of timeout-secs provided " Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] watchdog: mtk: allow setting timeout " Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 11:10 ` Sean Wang
2018-02-10 11:10 ` Sean Wang
2018-02-10 11:10 ` Sean Wang
2018-02-10 11:10 ` Sean Wang
2018-02-10 12:43 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 12:43 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 12:43 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 12:43 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 20:12 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 20:12 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 20:12 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 20:12 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-11 1:52 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2018-02-11 1:52 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-11 1:52 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-11 1:52 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-11 7:46 ` Sean Wang
2018-02-11 7:46 ` Sean Wang
2018-02-11 7:46 ` Sean Wang
2018-02-11 7:46 ` Sean Wang
2018-02-11 11:17 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-11 11:17 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-11 11:17 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-11 11:17 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-10 9:19 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] watchdog: meson: " Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] watchdog: coh901327: make use of timeout-secs provided " Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-10 9:19 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-02-11 17:33 ` [v2, " Guenter Roeck
2018-02-11 17:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-11 17:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-11 17:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-02-22 14:00 ` [PATCH v2 " Linus Walleij
2018-02-22 14:00 ` Linus Walleij
2018-02-22 14:00 ` Linus Walleij
2018-02-22 14:00 ` Linus Walleij
2018-02-10 14:29 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] watchdog: sama5d4: " Alexandre Belloni
2018-02-10 14:29 ` Alexandre Belloni
2018-02-10 14:29 ` Alexandre Belloni
2018-02-10 14:29 ` Alexandre Belloni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5449674d-2812-c9b5-9c06-af2fbfa72737@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=carlo@caione.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcus.folkesson@gmail.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@microchip.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sean.wang@mediatek.com \
--cc=slemieux.tyco@gmail.com \
--cc=vz@mleia.com \
--cc=wens@csie.org \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.