On 14/04/2023 04:12, Stanley Chang[昌育德] wrote: > >>>> Didn't you got already comment for this patch? How did you implement it? >>>> >>>> Also, I asked you multiple times: >>>> >>>> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary >>>> people and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an >>>> older kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure >>>> you base your patches on recent Linux kernel. >>>> >>>> I don't understand why you ignore this. >>>> >>>> NAK, patch is not correct. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Krzysztof >>>> >>> >>> Thank you for your patient guidance. >>> Because I'm not familiar with the review process and didn't use >> scripts/get_maintainers.pl properly in the initial email thread. >>> Therefore, this series of errors was caused. Sorry for the confusion. >>> Now I know how to use the script properly. >>> After correcting the maintainer's suggestion, I'll restart a new email thread >> and review again. >> >> Did you respond to feedback you got about the property? Did reviewer agreed >> on your view after your feedback? >> >> If not, then why resending this patch? >> > > 1. Because you said, "This patch is incorrect". And I won't be cc'ing the proper maintainer. > I think I need to restart a new review process. > 2. Modify the previous reviewer's comments and fix the dtschema validation error. > > Am I misunderstanding what you mean? > Can I keep reviewing this patch on this email thread until consensus is reached with the reviewers? I guess confusion is because you never received response from Rob. I'll reply there. Best regards, Krzysztof
