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;
Date:   Thu, 3 Jun 2021 14:16:33 -0700
From:   Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@chromium.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: SD-card GPIO pin set
 bias-pull up
Message-ID: <YLlGseTHHCTDN68V@google.com>
References: <20210602191338.1995827-1-sujitka@chromium.org>
 <20210602121313.v3.2.I52f30ddfe62041b7e6c3c362f0ad8f695ac28224@changeid>
 <CAD=FV=WzgvkT-F-LoDHJXsRamHH2g0GVUzoU4Qe8wAc4Y_L2Dg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=WzgvkT-F-LoDHJXsRamHH2g0GVUzoU4Qe8wAc4Y_L2Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 01:33:07PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> 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.
I can repost this patch again with this fix if required

> 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:
>
It is good to know this.

> 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>
Thanks for adding review tag again. I intended to keep this tag since
only commit message is updated, but I forgot to add it back while
posting latest version.

-Sujit