[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+zupgwa+m8Pa=+8shORaOA1OO6zoo6zYEojFS2UDuP0doBq7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2025 10:47:57 -0800
From: Roy Luo <royluo@...gle.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>, André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@...gle.com>, Doug Anderson <dianders@...gle.com>, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@...gle.com>, Naveen Kumar <mnkumar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: google: Add Google Tensor G5 USB PHY
On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 9:13 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 05/12/2025 04:54, Roy Luo wrote:
> > Document the device tree bindings for the USB PHY interfaces integrated
> > with the DWC3 controller on Google Tensor SoCs, starting with G5
> > generation (Laguna). The USB PHY on Tensor G5 includes two integrated
> > Synopsys PHY IPs: the eUSB 2.0 PHY IP and the USB 3.2/DisplayPort combo
> > PHY IP.
> >
> > Due to a complete architectural overhaul in the Google Tensor G5, the
> > existing Samsung/Exynos USB PHY binding for older generations of Google
> > silicons such as gs101 are no longer compatible, necessitating this new
> > device tree binding.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roy Luo <royluo@...gle.com>
>
> Why intentionally dropping the tag? How are you handling this patchset?
> Rewrite every time from scratch?
Hi Krzysztof,
I dropped the tag because a new file is being modified in this version,
Although it's just MAINTAINER file but I thought you might also want
to take a look. I wasn't sure if modifying a new file qualifies as
"substantial" so I erred on the side of caution. I should've called it
out specifically in the change log. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Regards,
Roy Luo
>
> <form letter>
> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>
> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
>
> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions
> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed
> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is
> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing
> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost
> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for
> tags received on the version they apply.
>
> 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.
> </form letter>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists