Message-ID: <6aa802c2-fe0d-f830-dc4d-3a139003e137@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 16:22:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rtc: s5m: Drop S5M8763 support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     David Virag <virag.david003@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org
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>
 <3a8e24921b9b47834199a7ca78af4d22ed370586.camel@gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <3a8e24921b9b47834199a7ca78af4d22ed370586.camel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/02/2023 16:11, David Virag wrote:
> 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:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, David Virag wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Virag <virag.david003@gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c            | 82 ++----------------------
>>>>> --------
>>>>
>>>>>  include/linux/mfd/samsung/core.h |  1 -
>>>>>  include/linux/mfd/samsung/irq.h  | 50 -------------------
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
>>>
>>> Actually, looks like this should probably go in via MFD, so I need
>>> an
>>> RTC Ack.
>>
>> There were comments on 1/2 so I was expecting a v2.
>>
>>
> 
> 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.

Yep. I also gave review tags for both of these.

Best regards,
Krzysztof