Re: (subset) [PATCH] mfd: rtc: bd7xxxx Drop IC name from IRQ

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> On 09/10/2024 17:29, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 15:01:13 +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > A few ROHM PMICs have an RTC block which can be controlled by the
> > > rtc-bd70528 driver. The RTC driver needs the alarm interrupt information
> > > from the parent MFD driver. The MFD driver provides the interrupt
> > > information as a set of named interrupts, where the name is of form:
> > > <PMIC model>-rtc-alm-<x>, where x is an alarm block number.
> > > 
> > > >From the RTC driver point of view it is irrelevant what the PMIC name
> > > is. It is sufficient to know this is alarm interrupt for a block X. The
> > > PMIC model information is carried to RTC via the platform device ID.
> > > Hence, having the PMIC model in the interrupt name is only making things
> > > more complex because the RTC driver needs to request differently named
> > > interrupts on different PMICs, making code unnecessary complicated.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Applied, thanks!
> > 
> > [1/1] mfd: rtc: bd7xxxx Drop IC name from IRQ
> >        commit: cd49b605779b4fea8224650eeba70b258c5cc8cc
> 
> Hello Lee, Alexandre,
> 
> Nothing pleases me more than having this quickly merged but...
> ... I don't think I saw ack from Alexandre yet. Furthermore, the (subset)
> makes me wonder because I sent RTC and MFD changes in a single patch - which
> might've been a mistake...
> 
> I tried finding the cd49b605779b4fea8224650eeba70b258c5cc8cc from MFD tree
> and failed. Hence I'm a bit unsure where we are going.

Applying this was a key-binding mistake.

This was my real intention:

  https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241009134416.GJ276481@xxxxxxxxxx/

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]