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 943A6207A30; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:40:14 +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=1728632414; cv=none; b=j1GhOfnaoS1PG1zKuGxDEP1wcecFAyZ+i4zxXL70zXMAKtvHJS6uJRFjrBVkg+Z8Ruc5SNXb/+nqADAB/YxhlNq/00jaI4AWh9qKk0c+c7AQuWywt38cZf3yUW8Qn18SzJE5kf1hXIuzi7RIk9DfiRyGbwzB1i01/GCNgFbQh4c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728632414; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ufe1xPjenN3eDVYHCnQkY7klh2kLErGpDUiRsq7Aygw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=UN/e5quBbcDzsSlPecJcGru/ybodBCpIcJczH6c6KMlzKBcM6TVVBriV/I8JrlInZlvdoHJFlqFEOxKo2lWLhmFSTMZ4uzRqMwBuGvTD8F25CUlYVX5A8RTaep6FoiDMQcEgPacrLS72mvMRnfsB37DxW7UzbyiLASzWBO03OjE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=gdj7QnNb; 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="gdj7QnNb" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BFA3C4CEC3; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:40:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1728632414; bh=ufe1xPjenN3eDVYHCnQkY7klh2kLErGpDUiRsq7Aygw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=gdj7QnNbS+n42PAUJAwDuz5+0Vwz+wKsoXpey0YtbomEQzGZV8tFN39xZfOkxF2ys ZI6Bxxw8ubCw/mRkjd7ExwOSIxyJ9iWNH1BO1/AcAz1tB3elvRW8v08dzSVu35dfua M27wFxddC5poYu3O2rsMjTbdrVpISZY+W2qN1ykiFCjJkbCyjwalVCh+83gtEItOdO Zs9zwBHvkHQ09kYMoTtiKf9weBydE8uvBpqGIv/NlL1TUaNCySPI+5POLjO6Y/8rtm cBtNLr2To/Tu9D3N1pxj+U+qqxzOr+YMlYEG3WXx2HF3RDYl2k4RW8o3QVfpo1WEyM 0a4JcFIKG37Cw== Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:40:09 +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: <20241011074009.GM661995@google.com> References: <20240920161518.32346-1-balejk@matfyz.cz> <172846840369.471299.4136306941601177946.b4-ty@kernel.org> <20241010083100.GB661995@google.com> <20241010083519.GC661995@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: On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, Karel Balej wrote: > Lee Jones, 2024-10-10T09:35:19+01:00: > > 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. > > Indeed, I didn't realize that yesterday. What I had in mind before was > in fact the other part of the patch: I was wondering about the policy of > applying a patch adding a MFD cell for which there is no driver > available. That's what I meant by "not a strict dependency in terms of > breakage". I've become less strict about that over the years. The chances of the accompanying driver not going in over the next release or so is usually very small. > > 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. > > So the above in other words: it sounds like you would apply this updated > patch independently of the RTC driver because otherwise you could just > ack the current version, is that correct? If so, I cannot see why this > would be preferable given what I wrote before about the RTC driver being > possibly delayed or eventually given up on (not that I would expect that > to be the case here :-). Could you please still comment on this then? As above. I trust you. :) -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]