Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 14:38:03 +0000, André Draszik wrote:
> > With the attached patches the Samsung s5m RTC driver is simplified a
> > little bit with regards to alarm IRQ acquisition.
> > 
> > The end result is that instead of having a list of IRQ numbers for each
> > variant (and a BUILD_BUG_ON() to ensure consistency), the RTC driver
> > queries the 'alarm' platform resource from the parent (mfd cell).
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Applied, thanks!
> 
> [1/3] mfd: sec: add rtc alarm IRQ as platform device resource
>       (no commit info)
> [2/3] rtc: s5m: query platform device IRQ resource for alarm IRQ
>       commit: c70aee3dd85482c67720eb642d59ebbb9433faa5
> [3/3] mfd: sec: drop now unused struct sec_pmic_dev::irq_data
>       (no commit info)

Looks like b4 is having a bad day.

I just applied v3, not this set.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 03:52:41PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026, Lee Jones wrote:

> > [1/3] mfd: sec: add rtc alarm IRQ as platform device resource
> >       (no commit info)
> > [2/3] rtc: s5m: query platform device IRQ resource for alarm IRQ
> >       commit: c70aee3dd85482c67720eb642d59ebbb9433faa5
> > [3/3] mfd: sec: drop now unused struct sec_pmic_dev::irq_data
> >       (no commit info)

> Looks like b4 is having a bad day.

> I just applied v3, not this set.

If you fetch a series but don't delete it from the database then (with
b4 ty -d) then b4 will remember it and if any commits in what gets
applied match it'll generate a mail for b4 ty -a.  Usually that's when
some commits didn't get changed.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 03:52:41PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2026, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> > > [1/3] mfd: sec: add rtc alarm IRQ as platform device resource
> > >       (no commit info)
> > > [2/3] rtc: s5m: query platform device IRQ resource for alarm IRQ
> > >       commit: c70aee3dd85482c67720eb642d59ebbb9433faa5
> > > [3/3] mfd: sec: drop now unused struct sec_pmic_dev::irq_data
> > >       (no commit info)
> 
> > Looks like b4 is having a bad day.
> 
> > I just applied v3, not this set.
> 
> If you fetch a series but don't delete it from the database then (with
> b4 ty -d) then b4 will remember it and if any commits in what gets
> applied match it'll generate a mail for b4 ty -a.  Usually that's when
> some commits didn't get changed.

The last attempt to apply this failed with conflicts.

I wonder why b4 stored that as a success?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 05:24:05PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026, Mark Brown wrote:

> > If you fetch a series but don't delete it from the database then (with
> > b4 ty -d) then b4 will remember it and if any commits in what gets
> > applied match it'll generate a mail for b4 ty -a.  Usually that's when
> > some commits didn't get changed.

> The last attempt to apply this failed with conflicts.

> I wonder why b4 stored that as a success?

Are you using b4 shazam?  I wonder if under the hood it's a mailbox
fetch then an apply.  I download a mailbox then script my own
application after the fact so it's not so surprising that it happens for
me, b4 knows nothing about the patches actually being applied until I
tell it to go look to send thanks.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

[Konstantin Ryabitsev]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 05:24:05PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > If you fetch a series but don't delete it from the database then (with
> > b4 ty -d) then b4 will remember it and if any commits in what gets
> > applied match it'll generate a mail for b4 ty -a.  Usually that's when
> > some commits didn't get changed.
> 
> The last attempt to apply this failed with conflicts.
> 
> I wonder why b4 stored that as a success?

It doesn't actually know -- it just stores the retrieved series and then
checks if it can find any of them in the tree in a commit with your
authorship. Sometimes it breaks.

My plan is to put in interactive mode where you can do a quick sanity check --
currently it's all of nothing with "b4 ty -a".

-K

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 05:24:05PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > If you fetch a series but don't delete it from the database then (with
> > > b4 ty -d) then b4 will remember it and if any commits in what gets
> > > applied match it'll generate a mail for b4 ty -a.  Usually that's when
> > > some commits didn't get changed.
> > 
> > The last attempt to apply this failed with conflicts.
> > 
> > I wonder why b4 stored that as a success?
> 
> It doesn't actually know -- it just stores the retrieved series and then
> checks if it can find any of them in the tree in a commit with your
> authorship. Sometimes it breaks.
> 
> My plan is to put in interactive mode where you can do a quick sanity check --
> currently it's all of nothing with "b4 ty -a".

Got it.  Thanks for the explanation.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 05:24:05PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2026, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > If you fetch a series but don't delete it from the database then (with
> > > b4 ty -d) then b4 will remember it and if any commits in what gets
> > > applied match it'll generate a mail for b4 ty -a.  Usually that's when
> > > some commits didn't get changed.
> 
> > The last attempt to apply this failed with conflicts.
> 
> > I wonder why b4 stored that as a success?
> 
> Are you using b4 shazam?  I wonder if under the hood it's a mailbox
> fetch then an apply.  I download a mailbox then script my own
> application after the fact so it's not so surprising that it happens for
> me, b4 knows nothing about the patches actually being applied until I
> tell it to go look to send thanks.

Not using shazam.  This is my abbreviated workflow:

 b4.sh am -3 -slt ${PATCHES} -o - ${id} > ${MBOX}
 cat ${MBOX} | formail -ds ./scripts/checkpatch.pl || true
 cat ${MBOX} | git am -3 --reject
 kitty -o font_size=12 git rebase -i HEAD~${NOPATCHES}
 b4.sh ty -aS --me-too --since=1.day

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]