Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
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>
Ok, thanks!
