Hi Marek,
2015-08-29 6:41 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut marex@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@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@socionext.com
Acked-by: Marek Vasut marex@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
------------->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. So, I guess it makes sense that custodians issue Acked-by instead of Signed-off-by.