[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56A0F053.6070405@osg.samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:50:59 -0300
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
Hello,
On 01/20/2016 09:34 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21.01.2016 09:30, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> I believe all patches should go through the RTC tree with proper acks or
>>> wait until the RTC patches land to pick the defconfig changes.
>>>
>>
>> I think Olof would prefer the last patches to go through arm-soc.
>
> That would be preferred but merging them before the 5/8 would cause a
> loss of functionality on these defconfigs making it non-bisectable
Exactly, that's why I suggested merging all through RTC with proper acks.
> approach. I think it would be good to preserve bisectability in that
> matter so either:
> 1. a tag from RTC on top of which these patches would be applied in arm-soc,
I didn't suggest that option because I thought it would be a lot of burden
for such a trivial change.
> 2. take them to RTC tree with our acks.
>
Or another option is to not pick the defconfig changes and I can repost
those again once the RTC changes land into mainline.
But of course if up to you to decide since I'm not a maintainer :)
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
Powered by blists - more mailing lists