> On Jun 15, 2021, at 8:44 AM, Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:39 AM Alex Nemirovsky > <Alex.Nemirovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jun 15, 2021, at 7:13 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:36:39PM +0000, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: >>>> MAINTAINERS modification was made in the initial version 1. We made no changes to it since then, >>>> thus not sure what we could at to Changelog which would add value or clarity for others >>>> from the v1. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 15, 2021, at 4:53 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 11:45:17AM -0700, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: >>>>>> From: Jason Li <jason.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> Convert the Cortina-Access UART binding to DT schema format. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Li <jason.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> .../serial/cortina-access,serial.yaml | 46 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 + >>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 6 +++ >>>>> >>>>> You are also adding a MAINTAINERS entry here, which is not listed in the >>>>> changelog text, so I couldn't take it anyway :( >>> >>> Add the maintainers entry in the first patch, with the driver please. >> >> The change to MAINTAINERS here add a new file into the DT documentation. >> Should it not be grouped into the dt-binding portion and reviewed by the DT time for which this patch >> is CC’ed to? Why would moving the DT documentation file that is introduced be into the first patch, which is the >> serial driver itself be the correct approach? > > The binding doesn't actually need a MAINTAINERS entry (though having > one is fine). get_maintainers.pl will also pull emails from the > binding schema. > > Rob Hi Rob, It sounds like you are find with patch 2/3 from a DT point of view. Could we review the rest from the DT point of view to get either feedback for changes or ACK these, so we can unblock this series? Thanks Alex
