On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:41 AM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 05:44:21AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 4:12 PM Sergio Paracuellos
> > <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 4:11 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > > > > Watchdog nodes must use 'watchdog' for node name. When a 'make dtbs_check'
> > > > > is performed the following warning appears:
> > > > >
> > > > > wdt@100: $nodename:0: 'wdt@100' does not match '^watchdog(@.*|-[0-9a-f])?$'
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix this warning up properly renaming the node into 'watchdog'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Note that we can not apply this and the next patch of the series
> > > > through the watchdog tree since it crosses a maintainer boundary.
> > >
> > > I was expecting Thomas to get these two arch/mips patches or get an
> > > Acked-by from him in order for you to apply them.
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > I think you have missed this series since you have started to apply
> > newer stuff in mips-next. Are you ok with taking or Acking patches 2
> > and 3 of this series?
>
> yes, I sort of missed it. If it's enough to take patch 2/3 I'll do that.
> If it's better to keep the series, I'm also ok with acking them.
> What's the best way forward ?
Both trees work for me. The rest of the patches of this series should
go through the watchdog tree. Guenter, what is better for you?
Thanks,
Sergio Paracuellos
>
> Thomas.
>
> --
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
> good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
