[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ebb14cef-9927-4211-94ef-2f209abeb406@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:04:47 +0200
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Michael Turquette
<mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linusw@...nel.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 00/17] Support ROHM BD72720 PMIC
On 12/01/2026 02:53, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 09:38:31AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> The MFD parts LGTM.
>>>
>>> Thanks Lee!
>>>
>>>> What Acks are you waiting on? What's the merge strategy?
>>>
>>> I think everything else has been acked by maintainers, except the
>>> power-supply parts. I think those have only been looked at by Andreas and
>>> Linus W. Haven't heard anything from Sebastian :(
>
> Yes, I'm lacking behind quite a bit, sorry for that.
>
>>> I would love to see the patches 1 - 14 and 17 to be merged (via MFD?). I
>>> could then re-spin the 15 and 16 to limited audience as I hope Sebastian had
>>> time to take a look at them. However, I don't think any of the other patches
>>> in the series depend on the last .
>
> Sounds good to me.
Ah. Since the 15/17:
"[PATCH RESEND v6 15/17] power: supply: bd71828: Support wider register
addresses"
was now acked by Sebastian, then it can also go via MFD?
Also, if it is Ok to address all the "dev_err() + return ERRNO" =>
"return dev_err_probe(,ERRNO,)" conversions in a follow-up, then I guess
the whole series, including 16/17 is good to go? If this is the case,
please just let me know and I'll send the follow-up. Otherwise, I will
re-spin the 16/17 and add a new patch for the remaining "dev_err() +
return ERRNO" => "return dev_err_probe(,ERRNO,)" case(s).
Yours,
-- Matti
--
---
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists