From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.s-osg.org (lists.s-osg.org. [54.187.51.154]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id jg4si170114pac.2.2016.01.21.06.51.11 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:51:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH 0/8] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Alexandre Belloni References: <1453310088-29985-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <20160121003047.GF3367@piout.net> <56A02791.9010409@samsung.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, Chanwoo Choi , Laxman Dewangan , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org From: Javier Martinez Canillas Message-ID: <56A0F053.6070405@osg.samsung.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:50:59 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56A02791.9010409@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Reply-To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Hello, On 01/20/2016 09:34 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 21.01.2016 09:30, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >>> I believe all patches should go through the RTC tree with proper acks or >>> wait until the RTC patches land to pick the defconfig changes. >>> >> >> I think Olof would prefer the last patches to go through arm-soc. > > That would be preferred but merging them before the 5/8 would cause a > loss of functionality on these defconfigs making it non-bisectable Exactly, that's why I suggested merging all through RTC with proper acks. > approach. I think it would be good to preserve bisectability in that > matter so either: > 1. a tag from RTC on top of which these patches would be applied in arm-soc, I didn't suggest that option because I thought it would be a lot of burden for such a trivial change. > 2. take them to RTC tree with our acks. > Or another option is to not pick the defconfig changes and I can repost those again once the RTC changes land into mainline. But of course if up to you to decide since I'm not a maintainer :) > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:50:59 -0300 Message-ID: <56A0F053.6070405@osg.samsung.com> References: <1453310088-29985-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <20160121003047.GF3367@piout.net> <56A02791.9010409@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from lists.s-osg.org ([54.187.51.154]:32990 "EHLO lists.s-osg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965248AbcAUOvM (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:51:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <56A02791.9010409@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Alexandre Belloni Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, Chanwoo Choi , Laxman Dewangan , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hello, On 01/20/2016 09:34 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 21.01.2016 09:30, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >>> I believe all patches should go through the RTC tree with proper acks or >>> wait until the RTC patches land to pick the defconfig changes. >>> >> >> I think Olof would prefer the last patches to go through arm-soc. > > That would be preferred but merging them before the 5/8 would cause a > loss of functionality on these defconfigs making it non-bisectable Exactly, that's why I suggested merging all through RTC with proper acks. > approach. I think it would be good to preserve bisectability in that > matter so either: > 1. a tag from RTC on top of which these patches would be applied in arm-soc, I didn't suggest that option because I thought it would be a lot of burden for such a trivial change. > 2. take them to RTC tree with our acks. > Or another option is to not pick the defconfig changes and I can repost those again once the RTC changes land into mainline. But of course if up to you to decide since I'm not a maintainer :) > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: javier@osg.samsung.com (Javier Martinez Canillas) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:50:59 -0300 Subject: [PATCH 0/8] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support In-Reply-To: <56A02791.9010409@samsung.com> References: <1453310088-29985-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <20160121003047.GF3367@piout.net> <56A02791.9010409@samsung.com> Message-ID: <56A0F053.6070405@osg.samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On 01/20/2016 09:34 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 21.01.2016 09:30, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >>> I believe all patches should go through the RTC tree with proper acks or >>> wait until the RTC patches land to pick the defconfig changes. >>> >> >> I think Olof would prefer the last patches to go through arm-soc. > > That would be preferred but merging them before the 5/8 would cause a > loss of functionality on these defconfigs making it non-bisectable Exactly, that's why I suggested merging all through RTC with proper acks. > approach. I think it would be good to preserve bisectability in that > matter so either: > 1. a tag from RTC on top of which these patches would be applied in arm-soc, I didn't suggest that option because I thought it would be a lot of burden for such a trivial change. > 2. take them to RTC tree with our acks. > Or another option is to not pick the defconfig changes and I can repost those again once the RTC changes land into mainline. But of course if up to you to decide since I'm not a maintainer :) > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America