> -----Original Message----- > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 06 March 2025 12:35 > To: Swathi K S <swathi.ks@xxxxxxxxxxx>; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > andrew+netdev@xxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx; > kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; > conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx; > mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx; alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-stm32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx; ravi.patel@xxxxxxxxxxx; > gost.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: net: Add FSD EQoS device tree > bindings > > On 06/03/2025 04:40, Swathi K S wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: 05 March 2025 21:12 > >> To: Swathi K S <swathi.ks@xxxxxxxxxxx>; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > >> andrew+netdev@xxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx; > >> kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; > >> conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx; > >> mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx; alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx > >> Cc: rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > >> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-stm32@st-md- > mailman.stormreply.com; > >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > >> pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx; ravi.patel@xxxxxxxxxxx; > >> gost.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: net: Add FSD EQoS device > >> tree bindings > >> > >> On 05/03/2025 10:12, Swathi K S wrote: > >>> Add FSD Ethernet compatible in Synopsys dt-bindings document. Add > >>> FSD Ethernet YAML schema to enable the DT validation. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Swathi K S <swathi.ks@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> <form letter> > >> 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 of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless > >> patch changed significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT > >> bindings). Tag is "received", when provided in a message replied to you > on the mailing list. > >> Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost > >> patches > >> *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for tags > >> received on the version they apply. > >> > >> Please read: > >> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=19972162-781c345b-1996aa2d- > >> 000babffae10-7bd6b1a1d78b210b&q=1&e=94dcc3a6-5303-441a-8c1e- > >> de696b216f86&u=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Fv6.12- > >> rc3%2Fsource%2FDocumentation%2Fprocess%2Fsubmitting- > >> patches.rst%23L577 > >> > >> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. > > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > As per a review comment received from Russell, I had added 2 new > properties to the DT - assigned-clocks and assigned-clock-parents properties. > > The example in the DT binding reflects the same. > > I felt it wouldn't be fair to add 'Reviewed-by' tag without you reviewing the > updates again. > > But I should have mentioned that in cover letter and apologies for missing > to do that. > Nothing in changelog explained new properties. Nothing mentioned Had mentioned under 'changes since v7' in the cover letter patch where I had mentioned about addressing Russell's comment and corresponding DT binding example changes of setting clock tree in DT. - Swathi > dropping tag, which you always must explicitly say. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
