[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc4bd212-c112-0d42-e94c-c3ba569d2d32@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 08:07:57 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Macpaul Lin <macpaul.lin@...iatek.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Bernhard Rosenkränzer <bero@...libre.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Bear Wang <bear.wang@...iatek.com>,
Pablo Sun <pablo.sun@...iatek.com>,
Macpaul Lin <macpaul@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt8395-evk
board
On 10/09/2023 14:23, Macpaul Lin wrote:
>
>
> On 9/10/23 18:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> External email : Please do nost click links or open attachments until you
>> have verified the sender or the content.
>>
>> On 09/09/2023 15:28, Macpaul Lin wrote:
>>> 1. Add compatible for MT8395.
>>> 2. Add bindings for the MediaTek mt8395-evk board, also known
>>> as the "Genio 1200-EVK".
>>>
>>> The MT8195 and MT8395 belong to the same SoC family,
>>> with only minor differences in their physical characteristics.
>>> They utilize unique efuse values for differentiation.
>>>
>>> The booting process and configurations are managed by boot
>>> loaders, firmware, and TF-A. Consequently, the part numbers
>>> and procurement channels vary.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul.lin@...iatek.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
>
> Changes for v4:
> Changes for v5:
> - No change, update Reviewed-by tag only. Thanks.
>
> The explanation is here. The version v4 and v5 are the same.
> For sending v5 is because "Patch v5 2/2" has been updated and these 2
> patches were in the same patch set. I think to update the whole patch
> set together with a single modified patch should be a usual operation.
> Did I miss anything?
Yeah, like not top-posting.
Why do you change the same line in other patchset?
>
>> Confusing. You just sent a patch changing the same hunk - adding
>> description, without any explanation.
>>
>
> The marketing naming rule of MediaTek SOCs are usually confusing people.
> I guess the previous patch just confused you. Ha.
?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists