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=-11.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 9168BC47096 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 21:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732346139A for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 21:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230073AbhFCVTW (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:19:22 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:37756 "EHLO mail-pf1-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230081AbhFCVTW (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:19:22 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f174.google.com with SMTP id y15so5876203pfl.4 for ; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 14:17:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=kvk9gslJOENTo6gRzwBFIjsERHiJMZgRHbw94r2xW9A=; b=VXgaTUaYAJDtDx/9sRAupTT/6+VvFP1y46HCUvnq4hGT+/pyTJuNzjTbXKEWExBUsU cxwGk7v+dkoI3+XN4I54OifcaSE/GQRa4D1jk2TcIzt9s1leutsX11/AxM7grfK4/WT1 k9KOP1QrRf5vSI/qWUfIM4omB09fWJ71qi1eQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=kvk9gslJOENTo6gRzwBFIjsERHiJMZgRHbw94r2xW9A=; b=otWMf9VH7ZoeSsKUrJyTw2n4CHFydXZwGa4KAle1NqMDh1N38VM3iwbYMaH+KjsPyP nhajw6ff+QlJbo4Qr1N5xv8S7xHgmJC4UnP4mdHQXXjhvGjzdmFeICjA5JlbKJtezL7D VCmTZdVdFY0h8eawp5TWepP7bf9JnJO38rE9y0FLSk1VDpIRKWYaxzZIOqxyQc3QztSm 9hR2tS6iyyrZzlzLztDyhY33+L+DTy6FCfF86gWAdh5+zQH85+8Nw80mG0n9QWULnW2N 6Fsd5tMa5tDMQXpGKPLT9LanUcm/6KrEN4KyYhMkx6rIwogfbw1Jz6Mx43JGt+ZmlbCE irbw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533lGn6UKpif/A9IB2tU1VRZ3xkJ1buh//T6gSHZfqcmIC3g3EgA WyJxZH4pNMCe9p0vxelRRFFGBQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZSwvbOF7F+yQSC2HeThqJ0Rt+yj7Kcehm2KQ5tifHrhsvzKkzsO9SXD9CPsG0VjPAPVbkxg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1161:: with SMTP id 33mr1411868pgr.270.1622754997011; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 14:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2601:646:8e00:b2f0:9b75:481:32db:356b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c62sm22833pfa.12.2021.06.03.14.16.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Jun 2021 14:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 14:16:33 -0700 From: Sujit Kautkar To: Doug Anderson Cc: Andy Gross , Bjorn Andersson , Rob Herring , Sibi Sankar , Rajendra Nayak , Mark Rutland , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , linux-arm-msm , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: SD-card GPIO pin set bias-pull up Message-ID: References: <20210602191338.1995827-1-sujitka@chromium.org> <20210602121313.v3.2.I52f30ddfe62041b7e6c3c362f0ad8f695ac28224@changeid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 01:33:07PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:14 PM Sujit Kautkar wrote: > > > > Some SC7180 based board do not have external pull-up for cd-gpio. > > nit: s/board/boards > > Presumably Bjorn could fix this when he applies the patch. I wouldn't > re-post just for this fix unless Bjorn asks you to. I can repost this patch again with this fix if required > FYI: I had my Reviewed-by tag on v2. While you did make changes > between v2 and v3, in this case I don't think the changes were > significant enough to warrant removing my Reviewed-by tag and I would > have been happy if you'd kept it. > > In general, if you ever have questions about whether you should keep > someone's reviewed tag, it never hurts to mention your logic "after > the cut" (I think you use patman so this would be "Commit-notes:"). > For instance, you could say this if you removed Reviewed-by tags: > It is good to know this. > I totally recombobulated the frobnication logic in v3 and removed > previous Reviewed-by tags. Hopefully reviewers can re-add if they > still think the patch is good. > > ...or, you could say this if you kept them but you weren't totally > sure it was OK: > > Even though every single line in the v3 patch changed from v2, it's > only because I fixed a stoopid spelling Mistake. Thus, I kept previous > Reviewed-by tags. Please yell if you object. Who knew that the only > acceptable spelling of the English word "stupid" in kerneldoc comments > was written as "stoopid". Live and learn. > > :-) > > In any case, here's my Reviewed-by tag again. I also agree that > Bjorn's comments made sense and were good to fix... > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson Thanks for adding review tag again. I intended to keep this tag since only commit message is updated, but I forgot to add it back while posting latest version. -Sujit