Message-ID: <3a8e24921b9b47834199a7ca78af4d22ed370586.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rtc: s5m: Drop S5M8763 support
From:   David Virag <virag.david003@gmail.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 16:11:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Y/eAPXwdv0kclEVA@mail.local>
References: <20230131183008.4451-1-virag.david003@gmail.com>
         <20230131183008.4451-3-virag.david003@gmail.com>
         <Y/d1DY/mXe7R5q8W@google.com> <Y/d1omGzBMFqjQx+@google.com>
         <Y/eAPXwdv0kclEVA@mail.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:03 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 23/02/2023 14:18:10+0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, Lee Jones wrote:
> >=20
> > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, David Virag wrote:
> > >=20
> > > > The S5M8763 MFD has no device tree compatible, and since board
> > > > file
> > > > support for it was removed, there's no way to use this MFD.
> > > > After
> > > > removing the remaining code for it from the MFD driver, also
> > > > remove
> > > > support for it in the s5m RTC driver, and all remaining
> > > > references to
> > > > it.
> > > >=20
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Virag <virag.david003@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > =C2=A0drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 | 82 ++----------------------
> > > > --------
> > >=20
> > > > =C2=A0include/linux/mfd/samsung/core.h |=C2=A0 1 -
> > > > =C2=A0include/linux/mfd/samsung/irq.h=C2=A0 | 50 ------------------=
-
> > >=20
> > > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
> >=20
> > Actually, looks like this should probably go in via MFD, so I need
> > an
> > RTC Ack.
>=20
> There were comments on 1/2 so I was expecting a v2.
>=20
>=20

Krzysztof commented there about the removal of an enum value that's
actually removed in 2/2 since it would break the RTC driver if it was
removed in 1/2. He realised that and corrected himself. No need for v2
AFAIK, unless something else is found.

The patch should definitely go via one tree (or by waiting for it to be
merged upstream, I guess) since the order has to be kept.

Best regards,
David