Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Laurent Pinchart <laurentp@cse-semaphore.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2765 bytes --]

Hi Jean,

On Wednesday 23 April 2008 13:16, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
> 
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:11:56 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> > 
> > On Saturday 19 April 2008 18:43, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > > Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am
> > > > under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to
> > > > wait for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be
> > > > fine with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many
> > > > developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.)
> 
> I still don't know exactly what happened there... I think I saw some
> "OpenFirmware i2c" patches go upstream yesterday? But not the ones
> listed below, which I thought they depended upon.

The code that went upstream introduces helper functions to create i2c devices 
from information supplied by the OF device tree. It doesn't strictly depend 
on the below patches, but the new devices won't be properly bound to a driver 
without them.

> > > The required patches are:
> > > 
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17833
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17834
> > > 
> > > which are just the forward ported patches you sent to the poweprc
> > > mailing list some time ago: 
> > > 
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16282
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16283
> > 
> > Given that the required patches are just forward-ported versions of
> > patches you sent (and thus probably reviewed as well :-)), what's the best
> > way to get them in 2.6.26 (if at all possible) ?
> 
> It's not that easy. A lot of new new-style i2c drivers have shown up in
> the kernel since I wrote my patches (themselves derived heavily from
> Jon Smirl's). Even if Jochen's patches are based on mine, we still need
> to take a careful look on how each driver is modified, I remember for
> example that some v4l drivers were using the original new-style driver
> binding in a way I did not expect. So I can't just sign these patches
> and hope they didn't break anything. It needs care, and this requires
> time.

I won't ask to merge the patches for 2.6.26-rc1 and fix introduced breakages 
afterwards, I know how you would react to that :-)

> I will do my best to get this done before the 2.6.26 merge window
> closes, but I can't promise anything.

Nobody will get angry if you can't merge them in time for 2.6.26. But many 
people will be happy if you can :-)

Cheers,

-- 
Laurent Pinchart
CSE Semaphore Belgium

Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A
B-1410 Waterloo
Belgium

T +32 (2) 387 42 59
F +32 (2) 387 42 75

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]