Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210602191338.1995827-1-sujitka@chromium.org> <20210602121313.v3.2.I52f30ddfe62041b7e6c3c362f0ad8f695ac28224@changeid>
In-Reply-To: <20210602121313.v3.2.I52f30ddfe62041b7e6c3c362f0ad8f695ac28224@changeid>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:33:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WzgvkT-F-LoDHJXsRamHH2g0GVUzoU4Qe8wAc4Y_L2Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: SD-card GPIO pin set
 bias-pull up
To:     Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@chromium.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:14 PM Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Some SC7180 based board do not have external pull-up for cd-gpio.

nit: s/board/boards

Presumably Bjorn could fix this when he applies the patch. I wouldn't
re-post just for this fix unless Bjorn asks you to.


> Set this pin to internal pull-up for sleep config to avoid frequent
> regulator toggle events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> Changes in v3:
> - remove 'trogdor' from commit message
> - move reference patch from commit message
>
> Changes in v2:
> - added pull-up for IDP
>
> This change is with reference to Qualcomm's DT change posted at:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11675347/
>
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dts      | 2 +-
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor.dtsi | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

FYI: I had my Reviewed-by tag on v2. While you did make changes
between v2 and v3, in this case I don't think the changes were
significant enough to warrant removing my Reviewed-by tag and I would
have been happy if you'd kept it.

In general, if you ever have questions about whether you should keep
someone's reviewed tag, it never hurts to mention your logic "after
the cut" (I think you use patman so this would be "Commit-notes:").
For instance, you could say this if you removed Reviewed-by tags:

I totally recombobulated the frobnication logic in v3 and removed
previous Reviewed-by tags. Hopefully reviewers can re-add if they
still think the patch is good.

...or, you could say this if you kept them but you weren't totally
sure it was OK:

Even though every single line in the v3 patch changed from v2, it's
only because I fixed a stoopid spelling Mistake. Thus, I kept previous
Reviewed-by tags. Please yell if you object. Who knew that the only
acceptable spelling of the English word "stupid" in kerneldoc comments
was written as "stoopid". Live and learn.

:-)

In any case, here's my Reviewed-by tag again. I also agree that
Bjorn's comments made sense and were good to fix...

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>