Message ID | 1381198434-9583-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
<dinguyen@altera.com> writes: > Hi Kevin, Olof, and Arnd: > > Please consider these DTS updates for the Altera SOCFPGA platform for v3.13: > > Five of the six patches do NOT have an Ack from the DTS maintainers. I have > sent the patches out for review, but since these patches do not change > bindings nor add new ones, I don't think they will get too much attention. > > Please advise if you think I need to wait for Ack(s) from them. The DT maintainers are primarily there to review new/modified bindings, so if there are now new/modified bindings, it's not a hard requirement for them to review/ack (though we still prefer it.) In this case, it's mostly just reorganizing and cleanup of existing dts data, so there are no problems with us taking it. That being said, the patch content looks fine, but as a matter of process, since you took accepted/queued these patches from Steffen into your tree before passing them on to us, you should have a Signed-off-by: on them instead of an Acked-by: since you're formally on the delivery path. (c.f. sections 12 & 13 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches for all the details.) Could you please respin a branch with the proper signoffs, and then I'll queue it up for v3.13. Thanks, Kevin
Hi Kevin, On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 13:57 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > <dinguyen@altera.com> writes: > > > Hi Kevin, Olof, and Arnd: > > > > Please consider these DTS updates for the Altera SOCFPGA platform for v3.13: > > > > Five of the six patches do NOT have an Ack from the DTS maintainers. I have > > sent the patches out for review, but since these patches do not change > > bindings nor add new ones, I don't think they will get too much attention. > > > > Please advise if you think I need to wait for Ack(s) from them. > > The DT maintainers are primarily there to review new/modified bindings, > so if there are now new/modified bindings, it's not a hard requirement > for them to review/ack (though we still prefer it.) > > In this case, it's mostly just reorganizing and cleanup of existing dts > data, so there are no problems with us taking it. > > That being said, the patch content looks fine, but as a matter of > process, since you took accepted/queued these patches from Steffen into > your tree before passing them on to us, you should have a Signed-off-by: > on them instead of an Acked-by: since you're formally on the delivery > path. (c.f. sections 12 & 13 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches for all > the details.) I should have known about this. Thanks for the feedback. > > Could you please respin a branch with the proper signoffs, and then I'll > queue it up for v3.13. Will do.. Dinh > > Thanks, > > Kevin >