Re: (subset) [RFC PATCH 1/2] mfd: 88pm886: add the RTC cell and relevant definitions

[Lee Jones]

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.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]