[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] ARM: uniphier: enable SPL_OF_CONTROL

[Marek Vasut]

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 02:03:39 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Marek,

Hi Masahiro,

> 2015-08-29 6:41 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>:
> > On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 02:23:54 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >> 2015-08-28 20:28 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>:
> >> > On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 01:13:18 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >> >> Device Tree really improves code maintainability and is now
> >> >> available for SPL too.
> >> >> 
> >> >> This is the state-of-the-art implementation in U-boot.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The board files (platform data) are no longer needed.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
> >> > 
> >> > Acked-by: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
> >> 
> >> Do you mean, Reviewed-by ?
> >> 
> >> You do not have maintainership for any files this commit is touching.
> > 
> > I meant acked-by, but I suspect the meaning of both acked-by and
> > reviewed-by is a bit ambiguous. Is there some document which explains
> > what acked-by and reviewed-by precisely mean ?
> 
> Personally, I was very convinced with the last answer (Nov 14, 2012;
> 7:34am) in this thread:
> http://linux-kernel.2935.n7.nabble.com/acked-by-meaning-td551744.html
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to refer to a more official one,
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches

Oh, they did formalize it here. I didn't know about that, thanks!

> ------------->8------------
> Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire
> patch. For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an
> Acked-by: from one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates
> acknowledgement of just the part which affects that maintainer's code.
> --------------8<---------------
> 
> 
> I think this is the typical usage of Acked-by:
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/508716/
> 
> 
> 
> In the kernel development, patch committers give Signed-off-by,
> but it is not the custom in U-boot.

We should certainly talk about the usage of SoB lines in U-Boot eventually.

> So, I guess it makes sense that custodians issue Acked-by instead of
> Signed-off-by.

That I am not so sure about. But, feel free to add my R-B to this patch if
you feel it's appropriate ;-)

Best regards,
Marek Vasut