From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 331D61D0DEE; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:35:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728549324; cv=none; b=uAUVrCMvfK8ie4UkZfjXaj0snk5vxBbZH63c+AelayF2wxXtFJWL+mcaQ9/xj241E3O3pHdE7Q8yRgYvG2m+pZQj99U0O4nS9lnvk3Ku6Iu9wQ7oGaEiKTLSRco5ax60yW88NEjUUNYpXOZ5Zy+jsJky9yXN+CHqUyL4F+xA91c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728549324; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FjCpKQcHBq2MJTA4mu6vcvwD0kBtWsw1rr0lcV+7Ufc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Xs8kwp5GmNU2G1+EySgXRoGRjK362IB+VALV6LgXdwvEv9uE5ZsMPacgu3TsO/RmpkrJDsVPoic5Kt0H4qCbOLsz1BLKGcTQCf5fLmQRSWBd/JD/YkQHlcTUGvEcOSIoj/4SjbMJTqKi/l3902XiMOR1Mj0mmgqf/jS455tAcv4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=XIE9QQNy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="XIE9QQNy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F119C4CEC5; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:35:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1728549323; bh=FjCpKQcHBq2MJTA4mu6vcvwD0kBtWsw1rr0lcV+7Ufc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=XIE9QQNyqADo/J6Gxhu5plzKAWPpHqsa44BkDiMJG8M8AEH2P03egxD5l7jvHTALo /cZWE8YCexg1qK8jrT9idOSMHi9O3ok8u37oBKoKIu3o9/S7IsrKe2Bbf53Q5+jn9L 7cq8ewKBA9cxrZ/S0Kmht9ZvTppc2uqRCu1iRg106+I4YFcfql7vLFyuNhpA5yUuhL /qTD/+Q75nx2VmJMilyE3t2IHNWkmpyuoVvaIaOkg/YCpBi1RR4GRAsI8ciR7GVkh6 QgONw4jBF6jAo0VlvuW9tWsChnYcrGPJh0tCyKLBa2Xq1N7z6qDNIVE2+QWioYHfUC ivXaRgAjJTe3Q== Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:35:19 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Karel Balej Cc: duje.mihanovic@skole.hr, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht, Alexandre Belloni , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: (subset) [RFC PATCH 1/2] mfd: 88pm886: add the RTC cell and relevant definitions Message-ID: <20241010083519.GC661995@google.com> References: <20240920161518.32346-1-balejk@matfyz.cz> <172846840369.471299.4136306941601177946.b4-ty@kernel.org> <20241010083100.GB661995@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20241010083100.GB661995@google.com> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 09 Oct 2024, Karel Balej wrote: > > > Lee Jones, 2024-10-09T11:06:43+01:00: > > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:12:34 +0200, Karel Balej wrote: > > > > RTC lives on the base register page of the chip. Add definitions of the > > > > registers needed for a basic set/read time functionality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Applied, thanks! > > > > Thank you, however I'm a little perplexed. > > > > It was my understanding that RFC patches should not be applied without > > further agreement, is that not the case? Obviously this patch was very > > simple and I used RFC mainly because of the RTC driver itself, but I'm > > curious to know for future submissions. > > I missed the fact that this was an RFC. I can unapply it if you like? > > > Also, I expected the entire series to go at once through the rtc tree > > with your ack as while it is not a strict dependency in terms of > > breakage, the first patch seems rather pointless without the follow-up > > which could theoretically take a long time to get applied and even some > > requested changes could require changes to this patch. Could you please > > explain what the policy is on this? > > The policy is flexible. However, the generally accepted rule is that if > there are build-time dependencies between patches, then one maintainer > (usually me since MFD is usually at the centre of these cross-subsystem > patch-sets) takes them and sends out a pull-request for an immutable > branch for the other maintainers to pull from. > > However in this case, there are no build-time dependencies so the > patches are able to and therefore should go in via their respective > repos. Actually, it looks like there are build-time deps between them. Please break out the inclusion of the additional defines and place them into the RTC patch. I will then Ack that one. The patch making changes to driver/mfd will still go in via the MFD repo. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]