On Mon, 15 May 2023, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2023 11:52:29 +0100 > Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx/ > > > >>> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Shengyu Qu <wiagn233@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> --- > > > >> > > > >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > 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. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
