linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8] rtc: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 RTC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VcfKdeQeJRhyANhnwB2j-AikzNY1t_vr5=Qon1tdR6P2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 19:00:27 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Esteban Blanc <eblanc@...libre.com>, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        jpanis@...libre.com, jneanne@...libre.com, u-kumar1@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] rtc: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 RTC

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 6:50 PM Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com> wrote:
> On 02/11/2023 18:46:05+0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 6:17 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@...libre.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu Nov 2, 2023 at 5:00 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 3:26 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@...libre.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Notes:
> > > > >     This patch was picked from a series since there is no dependency between
> > > > >     the two patches.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if RTC maintainer uses the b4 tool, but as I said in previous
> > > > email for pinctrl change, there is no need to resend. b4 has an
> > > > ability to select patches from the series to be applied.
> > >
> > > Oh that's good to know, I was not aware of that.
> > > I resent it because there was some minor nits that I fixed on both
> > > patches.
> >
> > Ah, that was not reflected in the changelog...
>
> For the record, I'm using b4 but it was not clear which path the patches
> would take.

You mean in the initial series? You take it by direct message-id with
-P _. Or did I misunderstand the problem?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko