Hello Krzysztof,

On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 12:27:16PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 12:20:54PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Krzysztof,
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 11:01:29AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 14/10/2026 13:04, Hal Feng wrote:
> > > > Remove the jh8100 compatible since the JH8100 SoC has been canceled and
> > > > will not be released.
> > > > 
> > > > Change the register size in examples to 0x10, since an OpenCores PTC IP
> > > > has only 4 32-bit registers: CNTR, HRC, LRC and CTRL.
> > > > 
> > > > I will maintain this pwm module in place of William.
> > > > 
> > > > Tested-by: Maud Spierings <maud_spierings@hotmail.com>
> > > 
> > > Drop, did not happen. Is it so tricky to respond to the one patch here,
> > > where the tag would be applicable, instead of replying to cover letter?
> > 
> > I don't know what Maud did, but if they checked that the various dt
> > linters are still happy, that doesn't deserve a Tested-by:?
> 
> No. Why would compilation be called testing?

I'd call the task of checking if anything breaks with the proposed
changes testing. For changes to .c files that most likely requires
complilation and running the resulting code on a machine. For dt binding
changes it means "testing" if all the existing device trees still
conform to the new binding because you cannot compile and run the
binding specifications. So in my mind this is still testing and a
Tested-by trailer is ok and welcome for me.

And from a more social side: I really appreciate if someone invests the
effort to check patches, by whatever procedure is appropriate, and
honoring that with a Tested-by: tag is the least we can do.

Best regards
Uwe