On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 11 December 2013 10:24, Peter Crosthwaite > <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >>> On 11 December 2013 05:59, Peter Crosthwaite >>> <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> >>> >>> Why Acked-by rather than Reviewed-by ? >>> >> >> Not 100% myself on the new QOM styles and standards around boards and >> SoC. But it is reviewed by me to the best of my knowledge. If that is >> enough, please feel free to promote to Reviewed-by. > > I'd call that Reviewed-by, yes. Acked-by is just "I don't object to this" > which is a sufficiently weak statement that it's not often used... >
Ok, Liguang, please drop the acks on p4 and p5 and replace by Reviewed-by on next spin. Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> Regards, Peter > thanks > -- PMM >
