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