On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 04:15 +0900, Takeharu KATO wrote: > Hi, Josh: > > Takeharu KATO wrote: > >> > > To tell the truth, this matter has been examined, but I forgot this. > > Thank you for making it recall(^^ > > > I performed minor fixes which you pointed out. > But I leaves WDT_WP[0123] on purpose. > The interpretation of this value is different between PPC4xx and e500. > To unite them, I leaves this.
Ok, that makes sense. > > >> > >> In include/linux/device.h there are dev_printk and dev_dbg macros that > >> do pretty much the same thing. Could you use those instead? > >> > > I did not know such thing. > > I'll try to use them. > > > On second thought, I found that it is not so good idea. > If I change this according to what you said, it is not > easy to find which driver outputs messages when we can > use multiple WDT in a system. > > Macros in include/linux/device.h will use name member in miscdevice > struct as driver's name, and this is commonly named as "watchdog". > Ok, that's fine too. No complaints here. > FYI, I show the difference with the patch submitted last time. > > > Regards,I'll test this driver today, just in case, before I post the > revised edition of this driver. Thanks! Looks good. josh
