On 2023/3/9 16:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/03/2023 09:13, Xingyu Wu wrote: >> On 2023/3/9 15:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 08/03/2023 04:40, Xingyu Wu wrote: >>>> Add bindings to describe the watchdog for the StarFive JH7100/JH7110 SoC. >>>> And Use JH7100 as first StarFive SoC with watchdog. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xingyu Wu <xingyu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>> >>> What happened here? You wrote in changelog "Modified" but what exactly? >>> How am I supposed to find it? >>> >>> Provide detailed description, since you decided to remove my tag. >>> Otherwise, standard response: >>> >>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process. >>> >>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it. >>> >>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: >>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new >>> versions. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add the >>> tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for acks received on the >>> version they apply. >>> >>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L540 >>> >>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. >>> >> >> I am sorry I did not elaborate it. The dt-bindings was only supported JH7110 watchdog in v3 patchset >> and you had sent Reviewed-by tags. But at the same time tried to add JH7100 watchdog after discussion >> and used JH7100 as the dt-binding's name because JH7100 is the first StarFive SoCs about watchdog. >> The compatible also add 'starfive,jh7100-wdt' in the dt-binding. It is different from the v3 patch and >> I did not add the Reviewed-by tag. > > So what is the difference? Filename and new compatible? > Yes. So are these acceptable and can still add the tag? Best regards, Xingyu Wu
