Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/5] dt-bindings: thermal: Add MBG thermal monitor support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 12/02/2025 00:57, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:50:12PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/02/2025 12:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2025 12:15, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/13/2024 2:08 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 09:41:20PM +0530, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +required:
>>>>>> +  - compatible
>>>>>> +  - reg
>>>>>> +  - interrupts
>>>>>> +  - io-channels
>>>>>> +  - io-channel-names
>>>>> Binding looks ok, but this wasn't tested due to unneeded dependency.
>>>>> Please decouple from dependency, so automation can properly test it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The dependency is needed because this mbg peripheral is present on only 
>>>> targets which have GEN3 ADC5, for which the bindings support is added in 
>>>> the series [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] 
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/c4ca0a4c-e421-4cf6-b073-8e9019400f4c@xxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>
>>> Sure. Then this cannot be merged due to resulting test failure.
>>>
>>> Please don't post new versions before this can be actually tested and
>>> applied.
>>
>> Heh, you responded *after two months*, to an old email so even previous
>> discussion is gone from my inbox.
> 
> Are you responding to your own email?

Look at the timeline of these emails. Satya responded after two months
with some comment. I responded now. Then I noticed that it is talk about
something two months old, so I responded again. Two responses from me,
that's correct.

I recently got way too many such 2-month old clarifications.

That's indeed right of the contributor to respond in their own pace, I
am also sometimes slow, but really there should be some limit. It's
putting unnecessary burden on reviewers as now I should dig some old
discussion.
Best regards,
Krzysztof