From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2AD3C55178 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:14:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9298B206DC for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:14:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732518AbgKEWOx (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 17:14:53 -0500 Received: from relay12.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.232]:44125 "EHLO relay12.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731508AbgKEWOx (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 17:14:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (lfbn-lyo-1-997-19.w86-194.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.194.74.19]) (Authenticated sender: alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com) by relay12.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5754F200006; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 23:14:51 +0100 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Claudius Heine Cc: Alessandro Zummo , linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Henning Schild , Johannes Hahn Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Adding I2C support to RX6110 RTC Message-ID: <20201105221451.GH1034841@piout.net> References: <20201104102629.3422048-1-ch@denx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201104102629.3422048-1-ch@denx.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Claudius! It has been a while ;) On 04/11/2020 11:26:27+0100, Claudius Heine wrote: > Hi, > > this patch introduces I2C support to the RX6110 RTC driver and also adds > an ACPI identifier to it. > > Since we are also pushing the coreboot changes for the ACPI table > upstream in parallel, we are free to name this ACPI entry however we > like it seems. So any feedback on that would be welcome ;) > I don't care too much about ACPI so if you are really looking for advice there, I guess you should ask seom of the ACPI guys (but I guess you are free to choose whatever you want). -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com