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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 9D995C433FF for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:37:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761D420665 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:37:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388635AbfHBNhH (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 09:37:07 -0400 Received: from sauhun.de ([88.99.104.3]:37712 "EHLO pokefinder.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405101AbfHBNg7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 09:36:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (p54B3308A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.179.48.138]) by pokefinder.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D4F92C08C3; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:36:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:36:56 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Simon Horman , Wolfram Sang , Chris Brandt , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Magnus Damm , Linux I2C , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Linux-Renesas Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: i2c: rcar: Rename bindings documentation file Message-ID: <20190802133656.GA23542@kunai> References: <20190724121559.19079-1-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <20190724121559.19079-3-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi Geert, > With the above fixed: > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven Now I understand why I applied this patch despite your request for a change. Patchwork picked up the tag, and so I it looked to me in the patchwork summary that this patch series was completely reviewed. Would it be OK for you to not give the formal tag in advance but rather describe it like "you may add my rev-by tag like in patch 1"? Or just wait for v2 and tag? Workflows aside, thanks for your continued reviews of patches! Best regards, Wolfram --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAl1EPHMACgkQFA3kzBSg KbZ7RhAAlCroZhSd5jTgDALjGRyID5fY13IsztvuZnprWKyFazvBExSaXA1UCyPX VKMrdS0wStW2XkD1ub1vSt9AwEiIoOi/xjNj2/KplcZlNybArQxvl0KlcYQSt/lT 49zfXC+Mq3JtHQ620a2gkydYhdtW3V3kVf+jrmDN6E40/5GmQ8mXww172IbzR8xz m6V3JKn/LUX3RYceLNJOU92SIiO9zi+xWrGDZ+py/7GR0S7r2Vay8CZ6ODyaPU8v n9JdZDWqUCeFwsaiv5rAjTAVVaon5kCkowxYihzbq1CiWYVKVsWEZejX03XjuDiu vwiNyQou86Wrn4hWAZKdWvGBf2TcKmK4DoE2XVGLlOJw7U7s0D9xepzZYDFQn7kM GVkQDZl7WU2IXaah4NfsXljMMaTXU00+eH+A2kfjz0vXHv7JIy285jR0VH6aZxzB UPl8hJCOxVYi1TuuwRXl5zd3KIwoWJDOmGUYKBFVUSuvxIoRE8ERK7DdC2aeOAK7 9Lc7ggneN4RynDfU1vo8JQk/gF2zBuCOQtlZ98Vh+sQXbhjlLp5SRVvcSW8YCgjZ /LHn8/8fDFaVzZ2Kx4dMvpoTb2kHI+cVCu9INgBmRd+7M2/D4nD5p76NWGsiG5vb 7Xyc1/zgsg3iXjFNuFNr4moVyv77I51WWvdHCHX/muYLUMl/vqc= =bVeD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/--