Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mfd: axp20x: Add support for AXP15060 PMIC

[Lee Jones]

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]