Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt8395-evk board

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 11/09/2023 08:46, Macpaul Lin wrote:
> On 9/11/23 14:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 	
>>
>> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until you 
>> have verified the sender or the content.
>>
>> On 10/09/2023 14:23, Macpaul Lin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/10/23 18:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> External email : Please do nost click links or open attachments until you 
>>>> have verified the sender or the content.
>>>>
>>>> On 09/09/2023 15:28, Macpaul Lin wrote:
>>>>> 1. Add compatible for MT8395.
>>>>> 2. Add bindings for the MediaTek mt8395-evk board, also known
>>>>> as the "Genio 1200-EVK".
>>>>>
>>>>> The MT8195 and MT8395 belong to the same SoC family,
>>>>> with only minor differences in their physical characteristics.
>>>>> They utilize unique efuse values for differentiation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The booting process and configurations are managed by boot
>>>>> loaders, firmware, and TF-A. Consequently, the part numbers
>>>>> and procurement channels vary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul.lin@mediatek.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
>>>
>>> Changes for v4:
>>> Changes for v5:
>>>   - No change, update Reviewed-by tag only. Thanks.
>>>
>>> The explanation is here. The version v4 and v5 are the same.
>>> For sending v5 is because "Patch v5 2/2" has been updated and these 2 
>>> patches were in the same patch set. I think to update the whole patch 
>>> set together with a single modified patch should be a usual operation.
>>> Did I miss anything?
>>
>> Yeah, like not top-posting.
>>
>> Why do you change the same line in other patchset?
> 
> Hmm, they are different patch actually.

That's what I wrote. "Other patchset" == "different patch".

> I've tested the patch v5 here can be applied with / without mt8365's 
> description patch independently.

That's not the answer to my question. I asked "Why". I have troubles
getting any answers here, so let's be clear - this or the other patch is
just wrong.

Best regards,
Krzysztof