On 02/01/2025 19:48, Lukas Schmid wrote: > Am 2025-01-02 19:31, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: >> On 02/01/2025 19:24, Lukas Schmid wrote: >>> Am 2025-01-02 18:57, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: >>>> On 02/01/2025 18:49, Lukas Schmid wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: Lukas Schmid <lukas.schmid@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++ >>>> >>>> You did not read really the messages we gave you... >>>> >>>> 1. Read what I wrote in my first reply for v1. I gave detailed >>>> instruction to avoid the exact mistake you now did. >>>> >>>> 2. Read again Andre's reply. >>>> >>>> 3. Do not attach (thread) your patchsets to some other threads >>>> (unrelated or older versions). This buries them deep in the mailbox >>>> and >>>> might interfere with applying entire sets. >>>> >>>> 4. Next version, with proper cover letter, is after 24h, so you have >>>> some time to digest the feedback. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Krzysztof >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thank you for your feedback, and I sincerely apologize for the >>> mistakes >>> in my submission process. >>> >>> I did read Andre's reply and your feedback on v1, but unfortunately, I >>> had already sent the v2 series as a reply before fully understanding >>> all >>> the recommendations. I realize now that this was a misstep and caused >>> confusion. >>> >>> I will wait until tomorrow, around 20:00, to send the v3 series. I >>> will >>> make sure to include a proper cover letter and ensure that all the >>> feedback from v1 and v2 is addressed. >>> >>> Regarding the v1 feedback, I thought I had incorporated all your >>> suggestions. However, after rereading it, I seem to have missed >>> something critical. Could you please point out what I might have >>> overlooked? I want to make sure I fully understand and correct it in >>> the >>> next iteration. >>> >> Please read my full reply for v1 of this patch. How did you implement >> that feedback - long instruction? >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > I assume by 'long instruction' you mean checking the devicetree using > 'make dtbs_check W=1'. There was nothing like that. Again, we talk about this patch, not other. You refer now to other patch. Best regards, Krzysztof
