rtc: rtc-isl12057: fixes and alarm support
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest0 of 6 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 6 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [PATCHv1 0/6] rtc: rtc-isl12057: fixes and alarm support
Hi Jason and Mark,
Quoted 18 lines · Arnaud Ebalard
This series includes six patches for Intersil ISL12057 driver.
- First patch is a fix for masking issues which dates back to driver inclusion. Even if those issues are not critical per se, the patch is a good candidate for stable down to 3.14.
- As suggested by Uwe, second patch adds proper support for century bit provided by the driver. This will allow to use the chip until 2199 if we manage to pass 2038.
- Following another comment by Uwe, third patch corrects the handling of oscillator failure bit.
- fourth patch fixes remaining places where 'isl' is used instead of the expected NASDAQ symbol for Intersil (i.e. isil) after commit
7a6540ca856ae("ARM: mvebu: Change vendor prefix for Intersil Corporation to isil").
Quoted 8 lines
- As suggested by Mark, fifth patch improves failure reports by providing error code in
dev_err()code.- Sixth patch provides alarm support for Intersil ISL12057. This support was not added when the driver was initially pushed in 3.14 kernel due to the inability to check interrupt support. After some soldering, this tests have been performed. More time was also spent on testing.
I wonder if you could take a look at this series I sent providing fixes (patches #1-5) and alarm support (patch #6) for ISL12057 RTC Chip. As all people do for RTC patches - due to lack of feedback from maintainer
- I am looking for someone to review the patches (Mark, patch 6 has a sticker w/ regmap-inside ;-)) and then push those upstream if they are ok (Jason, you handled that part for 70e123373c05: "rtc: Add support for Intersil ISL12057 I2C RTC chip" in 2013 for the same reason).
Note that I addressed previous comments and feedback received from Uwe and also spent time to do some soldering in order to support and test the last patch for both my use case (Alarm IRQ signal not routed to the SoC on ReadyNAS RN102, RN104 and RN2120) and the common case.
Do not hesitate to ask if you want me to resend!
Cheers,
a+
Thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.documentation/28237
Patch 1/6: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5310101/raw/
Patch 2/6: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5310111/raw/
Patch 3/6: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5310121/raw/
Patch 4/6: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5310131/raw/
Patch 5/6: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5310141/raw/
Patch 6/6: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5310151/raw/