RE: [PATCH v8 1/6] dt-bindings: phy: samsung,usb3-drd-phy: add ExynosAutov920 HS phy compatible

["Pritam Manohar Sutar" <pritam.sutar@samsung.com>]

Hi Krzysztof,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> Sent: 04 September 2025 12:18 PM
> To: Pritam Manohar Sutar <pritam.sutar@samsung.com>
> Cc: vkoul@kernel.org; kishon@kernel.org; robh@kernel.org;
> krzk+dt@kernel.org; conor+dt@kernel.org; alim.akhtar@samsung.com;
> andre.draszik@linaro.org; peter.griffin@linaro.org; kauschluss@disroot.org;
> ivo.ivanov.ivanov1@gmail.com; igor.belwon@mentallysanemainliners.org;
> m.szyprowski@samsung.com; s.nawrocki@samsung.com; linux-
> phy@lists.infradead.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-samsung-
> soc@vger.kernel.org; rosa.pila@samsung.com; dev.tailor@samsung.com;
> faraz.ata@samsung.com; muhammed.ali@samsung.com;
> selvarasu.g@samsung.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/6] dt-bindings: phy: samsung,usb3-drd-phy: add
> ExynosAutov920 HS phy compatible
> 
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 01:08:22PM +0530, Pritam Manohar Sutar wrote:
> > Document support for the USB20 phy found on the ExynosAutov920 SoC.
> > The
> > USB20 phy is functionally identical to that on the Exynos850 SoC, so
> > no driver changes are needed to support this phy. However, add a
> > dedicated compatible string for USB20 phy found in this SoC.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pritam Manohar Sutar <pritam.sutar@samsung.com>
> 
> You just dropped all tags without explaining why.

Regretted inconvenience. 

There were significant changes in supplies' names in driver and schemas 
(patch-set v8). This led to make changes in patch no 5.  And review for 
these changes is needed.  Hence, removed RB tag in this patch-set. 

There was a ask for the same https://lore.kernel.org/linux-phy/000401dc18cd$ec02a1b0$c407e510$@samsung.com/#:~:text=Let%20me%20know%2C%20because%20of%20above%20changes%2C%20should%20be%20removing%20your%20%0A%27reviewed%2Dby%27%20tag%20from%20patch%201%20and%203.

This had to be captured in changelog along with other details. Will remember to add details 
in future, if any tags are removed. 

However,  do I need to send v9 with the details? 

> 
> <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=6abe7ac7-0bc392bf-6abff188-
> 74fe485fffb1-49c70cea06738e63&q=1&e=fc43c80a-8c7b-41b0-aa24-
> 8cb76d954fe5&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.
> </form letter>
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Thank you.

Regards,
Pritam