Hi,

just re-checking the patch again. Seems that I have added it on top of my RTC
series. It breaks because of...

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:57:31 +0100
Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> wrote:

> That list was just empty, so it can be removed if .probe_new
> instead of .probe is used
> 
> Suggested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 11 ++---------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> index 18d56a732b20..70d52b46ee8a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> @@ -150,8 +150,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id rn5t618_of_match[] = {
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rn5t618_of_match);
>  
> -static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> -			     const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> +static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
>  {
>  	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
>  	struct rn5t618 *priv;
> @@ -251,11 +250,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused rn5t618_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
I added the pm stuff above ...


> -static const struct i2c_device_id rn5t618_i2c_id[] = {
> -	{ }
> -};
> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, rn5t618_i2c_id);
> -

and below it in my RTC series.

>  static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rn5t618_i2c_dev_pm_ops,
>  			rn5t618_i2c_suspend,
>  			rn5t618_i2c_resume);

Do you want to have it rebased so it can be applied first?
Sorry for the confusion here.

Regards,
Andreas