[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210712111519.00000ef7@Huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:15:19 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
CC: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, <lars@...afoo.de>,
<sre@...nel.org>, <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
<letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] power: supply: rn5t618: Add voltage_now property
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 09:11:30 +0200
Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:39 +0100
> Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:36:37 +0200
> > Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info> wrote:
> >
> > > Read voltage_now via IIO and provide the property.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > Huh? Seems unlikely it pointed out that this patch was necessary in general.
> > If highlighting a particular fix in an earlier version, then state what it was
> > in the commit message. Note for fixes that get rolled into patches, it's
> > often just mentioned in the change log and we skip the tag because it can
> > cause confusion.
> >
> The robot found a problem in v1 (missing depends on IIO). It is fixed
> now. The message from the bot tells to add a tag. It seems not to make
> sense. But probably the bot is also running on public branches (which
> will not be rebase) and uses the same message where it actually makes
> sense.
Yup. It might be helpful if they modified that message to suggest
commented format if the fix is rolled into an existing patch. I've seen
things like.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> # Fix something interesting.
Which makes it clear what is going on.
Jonathan
>
> I will send a v3 with that tag removed and the other comment addressed.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists