[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170718092245.tc5oosbbb6lzvqpy@dell>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:22:45 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com, wim@...ana.be,
linux@...ck-us.net, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: ds1374: Add Dallas/Maxim DS1374 Multi Function
Device
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 08:51:17AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> >
> > > From: Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>
> > >
> > > Add support for the Maxim/Dallas DS1374 RTC/WDT with trickle charger.
> > > The device can either be configured as simple RTC, as simple RTC with
> > > Alarm (IRQ) as well as simple RTC with watchdog timer.
> > >
> > > Break up the old monolithic driver in drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1374.c into:
> > > - rtc part in drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1374.c
> > > - watchdog part under drivers/watchdog/ds1374-wdt.c
> > > - mfd part drivers/mfd/ds1374.c
> > >
> > > The MFD part takes care of trickle charging and mode selection,
> > > since the usage modes of a) RTC + Alarm or b) RTC + WDT
> > > are mutually exclusive.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 10 +
> > > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 +
> > > drivers/mfd/ds1374.c | 260 ++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1374.c | 639 ++++++++++-----------------------------
> >
> > It looks like this should now depend on MFD_DS1374, right?
> >
> > > drivers/watchdog/Kconfig | 10 +
> > > drivers/watchdog/Makefile | 1 +
> > > drivers/watchdog/ds1374-wdt.c | 208 +++++++++++++
> >
> > The RTC and Watchdog drivers need to be split out of this patch and
> > placed into their own. Then we can take them through their respective
> > subsystem trees and do not have to rely on immutable branches for
> > unification.
>
> Ok, I haven't found a good way to keep this bisectable in that case. I'm
> open to suggestions. If the consensus ends up being to split it up, I'm
> more than happy to separate it out into multiple patches.
If it's genuinely not bisectable, then leave it as is.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists