On 09/03/2023 09:13, Xingyu Wu wrote: > On 2023/3/9 15:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 08/03/2023 04:40, Xingyu Wu wrote: >>> Add bindings to describe the watchdog for the StarFive JH7100/JH7110 SoC. >>> And Use JH7100 as first StarFive SoC with watchdog. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Xingyu Wu <xingyu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >> >> What happened here? You wrote in changelog "Modified" but what exactly? >> How am I supposed to find it? >> >> Provide detailed description, since you decided to remove my tag. >> Otherwise, standard response: >> >> 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. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add the >> tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for acks received on the >> version they apply. >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L540 >> >> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. >> > > I am sorry I did not elaborate it. The dt-bindings was only supported JH7110 watchdog in v3 patchset > and you had sent Reviewed-by tags. But at the same time tried to add JH7100 watchdog after discussion > and used JH7100 as the dt-binding's name because JH7100 is the first StarFive SoCs about watchdog. > The compatible also add 'starfive,jh7100-wdt' in the dt-binding. It is different from the v3 patch and > I did not add the Reviewed-by tag. So what is the difference? Filename and new compatible? Best regards, Krzysztof
