Re: [PATCH 0/2] DS1374 Watchdog fixes

[Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:58:24AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> Ah, I missed the "n" in various #ifndef statements.
>
> I can't really comment on how to solve that; I simply don't know.
> Also, even with a dt property, it still would be necessary to have
> a non-DT means to configure one or the other. Making whatever solution
> backward compatible also seems tricky; I don't have a solution for that
> problem either.

How does one do these things in a non-dt context? Platform data? I'd let
the MFD select the 'mode'. Maybe being backwards compatible isn't
possible in any case. Is there a rule somewhere that we guarantee you'll
never have to change your CONFIG_FOO options?

>
> > > > The idea was to fix what's broken currently (this patchset) and then refactor.
> > > > But if you prefer I can do all in one go instead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It just seemed a waste to me to change/fix a function which is going to
> > > be removed in a subsequent patch (I seem to recall that there was a fix
> > > to the ioctl function).
> > >
> >
> > I'd say that it depends on whether you want to backport the fixes to the
> > stable kernels. Backporting the full rework is probably riskier.

I suck at communicating these days. But yeah. That was basically my
concern when I split it up into 'Fixes' and 'Rework'.

Mostly since the rework might take a couple of rounds of review, while the
fix can unbrick stuff (might still need review of course)

Cheers,

Moritz