On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 05:44:21AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 4:12 PM Sergio Paracuellos > <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 4:11 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > > > > Watchdog nodes must use 'watchdog' for node name. When a 'make dtbs_check' > > > > is performed the following warning appears: > > > > > > > > wdt@100: $nodename:0: 'wdt@100' does not match '^watchdog(@.*|-[0-9a-f])?$' > > > > > > > > Fix this warning up properly renaming the node into 'watchdog'. > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Note that we can not apply this and the next patch of the series > > > through the watchdog tree since it crosses a maintainer boundary. > > > > I was expecting Thomas to get these two arch/mips patches or get an > > Acked-by from him in order for you to apply them. > > Hi Thomas, > > I think you have missed this series since you have started to apply > newer stuff in mips-next. Are you ok with taking or Acking patches 2 > and 3 of this series? yes, I sort of missed it. If it's enough to take patch 2/3 I'll do that. If it's better to keep the series, I'm also ok with acking them. What's the best way forward ? Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
