On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 09 Oct 2024, Karel Balej wrote: > > > Lee Jones, 2024-10-09T11:06:43+01:00: > > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:12:34 +0200, Karel Balej wrote: > > > > RTC lives on the base register page of the chip. Add definitions of the > > > > registers needed for a basic set/read time functionality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Applied, thanks! > > > > Thank you, however I'm a little perplexed. > > > > It was my understanding that RFC patches should not be applied without > > further agreement, is that not the case? Obviously this patch was very > > simple and I used RFC mainly because of the RTC driver itself, but I'm > > curious to know for future submissions. > > I missed the fact that this was an RFC. I can unapply it if you like? > > > Also, I expected the entire series to go at once through the rtc tree > > with your ack as while it is not a strict dependency in terms of > > breakage, the first patch seems rather pointless without the follow-up > > which could theoretically take a long time to get applied and even some > > requested changes could require changes to this patch. Could you please > > explain what the policy is on this? > > The policy is flexible. However, the generally accepted rule is that if > there are build-time dependencies between patches, then one maintainer > (usually me since MFD is usually at the centre of these cross-subsystem > patch-sets) takes them and sends out a pull-request for an immutable > branch for the other maintainers to pull from. > > However in this case, there are no build-time dependencies so the > patches are able to and therefore should go in via their respective > repos.
Actually, it looks like there are build-time deps between them. Please break out the inclusion of the additional defines and place them into the RTC patch. I will then Ack that one. The patch making changes to driver/mfd will still go in via the MFD repo. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
