On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:24:28 +0000 Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > > 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 wrote: > > > > > That list was just empty, so it can be removed if .probe_new > > > instead of .probe is used > > > > > > Suggested-by: Lee Jones > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade > > > --- > > > 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. > > You may as well wait until -rc1 is out and rebase on top of that. > hmm, then the RTC/IRQ series does not apply on top of it: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191220122416.31881-1-andreas@kemnade.info/ and needs to be rebased. I have no idea if that is more favorable for you. The RTC/IRQ series happily applies on top of v5.6-rc1, but not on top of this patch. Yes, I should have documented that apply-conflict, but was not aware of it while submitting this patch. Regards, Andreas