From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750907AbdLPFBV (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Dec 2017 00:01:21 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com ([74.125.83.66]:43759 "EHLO mail-pg0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750710AbdLPFBR (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Dec 2017 00:01:17 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouHkqphobYP5ioibWqDEDY994iLTdNmIiYsCA9BKCZcvG4AJmdAWpS2M/C0CS6PUxPLLFTtgA== Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:01:14 -0800 From: Brian Norris To: Enric Balletbo i Serra , Alessandro Zummo , Alexandre Belloni Cc: Lee Jones , bleung@chromium.org, Guenter Roeck , Gwendal Grignou , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, Stephen Barber Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] rtc: cros-ec: add cros-ec-rtc driver. Message-ID: <20171216050114.GA53653@google.com> References: <20171110215553.20696-3-enric.balletbo@collabora.com> <20171216045750.GB52366@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171216045750.GB52366@google.com> 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 + RTC maintainers On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 08:57:50PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:55:53PM +0100, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: > > From: Stephen Barber > > > > On platforms with a Chrome OS EC, the EC can function as a simple RTC. > > Add a basic driver with this functionality. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Barber > > Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra > > Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni > > Acked-by: Benson Leung > > --- > > drivers/rtc/Kconfig | 10 ++ > > drivers/rtc/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/rtc/rtc-cros-ec.c | 413 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 424 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-cros-ec.c > > This isn't quite super-helpful without the CrOS-EC / MFD additions to > actually create the device, but it's a good start, and I don't see any > problems with it. Any reason this isn't merged? Are the RTC maintainers > intendending to merge this, or should Lee (for the MFD header)? I > thought normally Lee deferred to other subsystem maintainers when the > only "MFD" stuff was a simple header change (such as in patch 1). > > Anyway, FWIW: > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris > Tested-by: Brian Norris