On 6/30/26 7:27 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/06/2026 15:47, Ben Levinsky wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> I apologize if this came off as my ignoring your emails.
>>
>> In the v3 you had said:
>>
>>> + - enum:
>>> + - xlnx,versal-bram-rproc
>>> + - xlnx,versal-net-bram-rproc
>>> + - amd,versal2-bram-rproc
>>
>> If there is going to be a new version, this should be sorted by name.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> I was uncomfortable in adding the Reviewed-by if that is what you meant.
>>
>> In this v4 I believe your review comment to sort by name was addressed.
>>
>> Apologies for my misunderstanding.
>
> Did you implement my comment? It seems yes. Did you change something
> else? It seems not, at least changelog is silent. So why would me Review
> tag be not appropriate if you actually implemented reviewer's feedback?
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof,
Thank you for the clarification.
I misunderstood the intent of your earlier email and erred on the side of
caution by not carrying over the Reviewed-by tag. Since the only change in
patch v4 1/2 was implementing your review feedback (as noted in the cover
letter changelog), I understand now that it would have been appropriate to
retain your Reviewed-by.
I'll make sure to carry over Reviewed-by tags in similar situations going
forward when only the reviewed feedback has been incorporated.
Given that the current series has already been posted, what would you recommend
as the next step? Should I simply wait for the series to progress as-is, or
would you prefer that I send a follow-up revision restoring your Reviewed-by
tag?
Thanks again for the explanation, and apologies for the confusion.
Best regards,
Ben
