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]
