[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: Fix GSIV values of the {GERR, Sync}

From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: Fix GSIV values of the {GERR, Sync} interrupts
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:31:28 +0000

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 13:23, Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> On 4/6/21 12:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 11:10, Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Zenghui,
> >>
> >> On 4/2/21 10:47 AM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> >>> The GSIV values in SMMUv3 IORT node are not correct as they don't match
> >>> the SMMUIrq enumeration, which describes the IRQ<->PIN mapping used by
> >>> our emulated vSMMU.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: a703b4f6c1ee ("hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: Add smmuv3 node in IORT 
> >>> table")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> >> Acked-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> >
> > Eric, when you send an acked-by tag do you mean to say that you've
> > reviewed the patch, or merely that you think it's basically the
> > right thing but you haven't actually looked at the details?
> I mean I have reviewed the patch carefully and I think it is good to go.
> I thought that as a maintainer for the arm smmu component I was supposed
> to send an A-b instead of an R-b.

The usual meaning I think is that "Acked-by" means "I'm the maintainer,
I've seen this going by, and I'm basically OK with this" (ie it's you
saying "I'm not NAKing it") -- so it's not as "strong" as a "Reviewed-by"
tag (which means "I've reviewed it").

-- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]