From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757912AbcDHHR2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2016 03:17:28 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:34371 "EHLO mail-wm0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753006AbcDHHR0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2016 03:17:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:17:21 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Chanwoo Choi , Arnd Bergmann , Javier Martinez Canillas , Kukjin Kim , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman , Paul Gortmaker Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: max77693: Allow building as a module Message-ID: <20160408071721.GE3323@x1> References: <1459756459-22061-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20160407132947.GB3323@x1> <20160408035445.GA9532@kozik-lap> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160408035445.GA9532@kozik-lap> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 08 Apr 2016, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:29:47PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Apr 2016, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > > The consumer of max77693 regulators on Trats2 board (samsung-usb2-phy > > > driver) supports deferred probing so the max77693 main MFD driver can be > > > built now as a module. This gives more flexibility and removes manual > > > ordering of init calls. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Paul Gortmaker > > > Cc: Paul Gortmaker > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > --- > > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 4 ++-- > > > drivers/mfd/max77693.c | 14 ++------------ > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > I assume this can be taken immediately and doesn't depend on anything > > external to the set? > > > > For my own reference: > > Acked-by: Lee Jones > > Hi, > > Yes, this can be taken as is. Only second patch (changing defconfig) > depends on this. I can take the second patch through samsung tree but > that would require a tag/branch with this... which looks like an > overkill. So maybe you would take both? If I take the defconfig patch without a tag, there will almost certainly be merge conflicts. Other solutions include; delaying the defconfig patch for one cycle or trying to get it in post -rc1. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog