On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:41 AM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 05:44:21AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 4:12 PM Sergio Paracuellos
<sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 4:11 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
Watchdog nodes must use 'watchdog' for node name. When a 'make dtbs_check'
is performed the following warning appears:
wdt@100: $nodename:0: 'wdt@100' does not match '^watchdog(@.*|-[0-9a-f])?$'
Fix this warning up properly renaming the node into 'watchdog'.
Reviewed-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Note that we can not apply this and the next patch of the series
through the watchdog tree since it crosses a maintainer boundary.
I was expecting Thomas to get these two arch/mips patches or get an
Acked-by from him in order for you to apply them.
Hi Thomas,
I think you have missed this series since you have started to apply
newer stuff in mips-next. Are you ok with taking or Acking patches 2
and 3 of this series?
yes, I sort of missed it. If it's enough to take patch 2/3 I'll do that.
If it's better to keep the series, I'm also ok with acking them.
What's the best way forward ?
Both trees work for me. The rest of the patches of this series should
go through the watchdog tree. Guenter, what is better for you?
Thanks,
Sergio Paracuellos
Thomas.
--
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]