Hi Peter,
On 4/6/21 2:31 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 13:23, Auger Eric <eric.au...@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.au...@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 <yuzeng...@huawei.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@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").
Hum OK, I thought it was stronger than the R-b. So in the future, wrt
the SMMU component, I will give an R-b as I always do a proper review.
Thanks
Eric
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
