lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] mfd: axp20x: Add support for AXP15060 PMIC
From
Hi Andre,

Please ping me if your new version of axp313a series is sent, I would update

mine as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Shengyu

> On Mon, 15 May 2023, Andre Przywara wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 May 2023 11:52:29 +0100
>> Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 May 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/05/2023 13:07, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 15:27:40 +0100
>>>>> Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Lee,
>>>>>
>>>>> I see this patch in Linus' tree, but something must have gone wrong here,
>>>>> can you please check? See below ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023, Shengyu Qu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The AXP15060 is a PMIC chip produced by X-Powers, and could be connected
>>>>>>> via an I2C bus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Describe the regmap and the MFD bits, along with the registers exposed
>>>>>>> via I2C. Eventually advertise the device using a new compatible string
>>>>>>> and add support for power off the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The driver would disable PEK function if IRQ is not configured in device
>>>>>>> tree, since some boards (For example, Starfive Visionfive 2) didn't
>>>>>>> connect IRQ line of PMIC to SOC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GPIO function isn't enabled in this commit, since its configuration
>>>>>>> operation is different from any existing AXP PMICs and needs
>>>>>>> logic modification on existing driver. GPIO support might come in later
>>>>>>> patches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> You must not use these above the tags or Git will drop them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since v2:
>>>>>>> - Rebase to AXP313a series v10 [1] + newest (20230420) -next branch
>>>>> So this patch was based on the AXP313a series, but I don't see that in
>>>>> Linus' tree (or in any of your trees, if I have checked correctly).
>>>>> There must have been a conflict, as this [PATCH v3 2/3] diff actually lists
>>>>> the axp313a entry in the context lines.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Add axp_regulator_only_cells rather than directly using axp806_cells
>>>>>>> for cases that IRQ line isn't connected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since v1:
>>>>>>> - Nothing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sunxi/20230401001850.4988-1-andre.przywara@arm.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shengyu Qu <wiagn233@outlook.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Put change-logs here instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drivers/mfd/axp20x-i2c.c | 2 +
>>>>>>> drivers/mfd/axp20x.c | 107 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>> include/linux/mfd/axp20x.h | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 194 insertions(+)
>>>>>> I manually added the missing tags for this and the DT patch and applied.
>>>>> So this patch doesn't list any tags aside from Shengyu's
>>>>> Signed-off-by. The patch in Linus' tree list a Reviewed-by: from
>>>>> Krzysztof, which I don't see anywhere in the thread, he just reviewed the
>>>>> binding patch, AFAICT.
>>>> Yep, I never reviewed this.
>>>>
>>>>> I see your tentative R-b: on v2, but with the
>>>>> request to rebase and resend, which he did with v3. The applied patch
>>>>> looks like v3, but not on the base commit this was send against.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I am slightly confused, and am also wondering what happened to the
>>>>> AXP313a patches? I see the binding patch merged, but not the MFD part,
>>>>> even though you replied saying so.
>>>> Because the patch #1 was broken, see:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/TY3P286MB261177CF7AA2959BD9517DA998609@TY3P286MB2611.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/
>>>>
>>>> The SoB and Reviewed-by were after --- and apparently b4 understood it
>>>> as cover letter and applied everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> Lee,
>>>> Do you have the latest b4? If yes, this should be reported as b4 bug,
>>>> assuming you used it.
>>> I am using b4, although the version I'm using is quite old (0.9.0).
>>>
>>> Also, this was quite some time ago - I have slept since applying this
>>> and do not distinctly remember doing so. Thus, the application of your
>>> R-b may well have been a mistake on my part. I'll keep an eye for such
>>> things in the future and if I see (and remember) an issue, I'll report
>>> it.
>> So what are we going to do about the two series now? I guess it's not
>> worthwhile to revert Shengyu's patch, just for the wrong R-b: tag?
> No, I won't be reverting any patches.
>
>> So does this mean both series should be rebased on top of that and re-sent?
> Yes please.
>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-15 17:45    [W:0.070 / U:0.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site