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]
