On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 10:01:39AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:08:53PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 06:12:26PM +0300, George Stark wrote: > > > Hello Rob, Conor > > > > > > On 7/12/24 15:52, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 02:41:15AM +0300, George Stark wrote: > > > > > The chip has 3 dual-channel PWM modules PWM_AB, PWM_CD, PWM_EF. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Missing ack from Conor. When you submit new versions, it is your > > > > responsibility to add tags. > > > > > > I had Conor's ack in my mind but his response was related to the > > > squashed patch (a1 compatible + power domains) and the current patch was > > > a bit different that's why I didn't dare to add the ack. > > > > > > Conor, do you mind if I resend this patch (and may be [PATCH v4 1/3]) > > > with your ack? > > > > Ye, both are fine :+1: > > I interpreted that as an ack for patches 1 and 2 and applied these to > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ukleinek/linux.git pwm/for-next > . I guess that interpretation is fine, please tell me if not. Yah, I was okaying my ack being added to both patches in a resend.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
