[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9AnTiM/dKMhc1eP@mail.local>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 19:45:34 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH 0/6] rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: add RTC alarm irq
On 24/01/2023 09:42:19-0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 1/23/23 15:08, 'Alexandre Belloni' via BCM-KERNEL-FEEDBACK-LIST,PDL
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:01:41 -0800, Doug Berger wrote:
> > > Support is added for an interrupt that can be triggered from the
> > > brcmstb-waketimer hardware while the system is awake.
> > >
> > > This interrupt allows the driver to pass the rtctest selftest.
> > >
> > > Doug Berger (6):
> > > rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: introduce WKTMR_ALARM_EVENT flag
> > > rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: non-functional code changes
> > > rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: compensate for lack of wktmr disable
> > > rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: rename irq to wake_irq
> > > dt-bindings: rtc: brcm,brcmstb-waketimer: add alarm interrupt
> > > rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: allow use as non-wake alarm
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > Applied, thanks!
> >
> > [1/6] rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: introduce WKTMR_ALARM_EVENT flag
> > commit: 90226f6b17a3edcb0bddaf2f16991861c99d6a15
> > [2/6] rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: non-functional code changes
> > commit: 2cd98b22c1443d1f2921a371baee658da184868e
> > [3/6] rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: compensate for lack of wktmr disable
> > commit: 516ae02c38ff3ae867f9b19fa050f78157e2bdae
> > [4/6] rtc: brcmstb-waketimer: rename irq to wake_irq
> > commit: eae258edcb8705932c9e5c61a99f91d8235f688b
>
> That was quick, how about patch 6? It does not actually have a dependency on
> the Device Tree binding (patch 5) and the second interrupt is looked up by
> index.
My understanding is that if I take it, then the feature will not be
documented. I keep that as an incentive to send v2 ;)
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists