Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: riscv: starfive: add xunlong,orangepi-rv

[E Shattow <e@freeshell.de>]

On 11/25/25 00:01, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> 在 2025-11-25星期二的 08:48 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道：
>> On 25/11/2025 08:33, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>> 在 2025-11-25星期二的 08:28 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道：
>>>> On 24/11/2025 22:59, E Shattow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/24/25 05:22, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 08:28:10AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 02:50:44PM -0800, E Shattow wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add "xunlong,orangepi-rv" as a StarFive JH7110 SoC-based
>>>>>>>> board.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: E Shattow <e@freeshell.de>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <form letter>
>>>>>>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's from me, don't resubmit just to add it since it'll be me
>>>>>> applying
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Conor,
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. Yes I'd dropped the tag since the commit message is
>>>>> appreciably
>>>>> different, and you would be handling it again anyways. Thanks!
>>>>> And
>>>>> thank
>>>>> you Krzysztof for the reminder -E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And where did you explain that you dropped the tag because of
>>>> that?
>>>> Please read the form letter carefully.
>>>
>>> Well I think there's no clear definition of "the patch has changed
>>> substantially" here.
>>>
>>> E may think for this such-short patch, the commit message weighs a
>>> lot
>>> and the change to it is significant to the patch (e.g. making the
>>> patch
>>> not clear enough).
>>
>> You still did not bother to read what we expect. I do not discuss if
>> this changed significantly or not, although it is obvious that it did
>> not change and tag should have been retained.
>>
>> Look again:
>> <QUOTE>
>> Please read:
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
>>
>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
>> </QUOTE>
>>
>> Where did you explain that?
> 
> Sure, I agree that explaination of this should be delivered.
> 
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
> 

Krzysztof,

The submitting-patches document does not support your assertion in this
situation. I evidently have a different understanding of than you, as
when I read it before sending the series I did arrive at the action of:

1. Acked-by is less formal and so it is a matter of opinion and
judgement whether to retain it or not. I choose not to here due to
changes visible in the commit log (the commit messages and titles). I
would let Conor decide if they will acknowledge the revised series
instead of making that decision for them.

2. I am not required to mention the drop of any Acked-by tag in the
cover letter for this situation. Conor is handling this series so I do
need to participate on the mailing list when there's a question or
comment about picking up the lack of Acked-by.

I am in the understanding at the exchange between Conor and I that this
concern of yours will be resolved without my input depending on the
review from Emil. Let us know what/if more specific and actionable needs
done and whom by you expect it to be done.

Thank you,

-E