On 2/28/23 00:51, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
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?
Wim is handling pull requests. He has queued the other three patches in his
tree. I would suggest to apply the two remaining patches through the mips
tree.
Guenter
Thanks,
Sergio Paracuellos
Thomas.
--
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
