Re: [PATCH v4] dt-bindings: serial: actions,owl-uart: convert to dtschema

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 31/03/2024 15:28, Kanak Shilledar wrote:
> From: Kanak Shilledar <kanakshilledar111@protonmail.com>
> 
> Convert the Actions Semi Owl UART to newer DT schema.
> Created DT schema based on the .txt file which had
> `compatible`, `reg` and `interrupts` as the
> required properties. This binding is used by Actions S500, S700
> and S900 SoC. S700 and S900 use the same UART compatible string.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

I explicitly asked you to drop my tag. Last time I raised the problem
that you implement some other changes and do not implement what reviewer
is asking for. It seems this continues the pattern.


> Signed-off-by: Kanak Shilledar <kanakshilledar111@protonmail.com>
> ---
> Changes in v4
> - added `clocks` property to fix warning of 'clocks' was unexpected
> while running `make dtbs_check`. `clocks` property was not defined
> in the original .txt file. `clocks` property is removed from the
> required section.
> - added `clocks` property in example
> - extended the devicetree with clocks node

Please keep the reset of the changelog.

You had two other versions, what was changing? Why this is not even
correct? Your v4 did not add clocks to the example. It was already in v3.

How can we know what you changed here if this changelog is totally
mixing everything from all changes?

Please read this carefully and read the feedback carefully. Then create
changelogs which represent REAL CHANGES, like:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240210-topic-8280_pcie-v3-0-ee7af6f892a0@linaro.org/

If someone asks you to drop the tag, you MUST drop the tag.

The patch is fine though, so I would give Review tag now. Keep above for
future and no need to resend just to fix it. If you send or resend, then
fix the changelog.

FWIW

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

BUT, your patch won't be applied... because you decided not to CC
maintainers. I have no clue how or why did you come up with such Cc
list. There is a guideline in your project, whether this is GSoC or
mentorship or whatever, how to send patches. Please read carefully this
guideline.

Standard form letter:

Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people
and lists to CC (and consider --no-git-fallback argument). It might
happen, that command when run on an older kernel, gives you outdated
entries. Therefore please be sure you base your patches on recent Linux
kernel.

Tools like b4 or scripts/get_maintainer.pl provide you proper list of
people, so fix your workflow. Tools might also fail if you work on some
ancient tree (don't, instead use mainline), work on fork of kernel
(don't, instead use mainline) or you ignore some maintainers (really
don't). Just use b4 and everything should be fine, although remember
about `b4 prep --auto-to-cc` if you added new patches to the patchset.

Best regards,
Krzysztof