From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C82BC433E0 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 23:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3BB2080D for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 23:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="HJ/gl9Wp" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726390AbgGTX0d (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:26:33 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:57030 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726021AbgGTX0d (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:26:33 -0400 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 06KNQQUp126401; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:26:26 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1595287586; bh=wF6WhftYpfnYBX0J8FroMAAxX2oGr5JH/Sy0gngDAQE=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=HJ/gl9WpBPKLP2N3e10x4sgs4qC19hCsqP5TkyS1yPl4i1u+BCf50ROad0S0312O/ JZ6aUKG+GeUx+tb+vaBoBG2heRPSQG6TkNlnq8Fb3DLxZHFbDNFGWNXtvBKJUeaOka E3GJOpmAo2Qu+nqNaqCF8m4O2/6WFGN/gsNvUzOc= Received: from DFLE102.ent.ti.com (dfle102.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.23]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 06KNQQ6c046734 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:26:26 -0500 Received: from DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) by DFLE102.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:26:26 -0500 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:26:26 -0500 Received: from [10.250.34.248] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0327.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 06KNQQZX006261; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:26:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add common TI SCI rproc bindings To: Rob Herring CC: Lokesh Vutla , , , , Bjorn Andersson , Mathieu Poirier , Rob Herring , References: <20200717234800.9423-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20200717234800.9423-4-s-anna@ti.com> <20200720221718.GA2899451@bogus> From: Suman Anna Message-ID: <4968835e-2ba5-dcd8-93b9-c3e33aabb0a9@ti.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:26:26 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200720221718.GA2899451@bogus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 7/20/20 5:17 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:47:57 -0500, Suman Anna wrote: >> Add a bindings document that lists the common TI SCI properties >> used by the K3 R5F and DSP remoteproc devices. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna >> --- >> v4: Addressed both of Rob's review comments on ti,sci-proc-ids property >> v3: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11602317/ >> >> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-sci-proc.yaml | 48 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-sci-proc.yaml >> > > Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-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. > > If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. Rob, You seem to have added your Reviewed-by tag by mistake on this particular patch [1], that's why I actually dropped it. I do use pwclient, so the tags do get picked up automatically for my newer versions. regards Suman [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/comment/23484127/