linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 04/18] dt-bindings: clock: mobileye,eyeq5-clk: add bindings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4e9ce766-602f-4b75-8c25-48da4d22051e@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:00:09 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>,
 Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
 Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd
 <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Rafał Miłecki
 <rafal@...ecki.pl>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Vladimir Kondratiev <vladimir.kondratiev@...ileye.com>,
 linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
 Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik.bayouk@...ileye.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/18] dt-bindings: clock: mobileye,eyeq5-clk: add
 bindings

On 01/02/2024 11:38, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu Feb 1, 2024 at 9:58 AM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 31/01/2024 17:26, Théo Lebrun wrote:
>>> Add DT schema bindings for the EyeQ5 clock controller driver.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> No changelog, tags ignored, I scrolled through first two pages of cover
>> letter and also no changelog.
> 
> In this case we fit into the "If a tag was not added on purpose". Sorry
> the changelog was not explicit enough. In my mind it fits into the
> first bullet point of the cover letter changelog:
> 
>> - Have the three drivers access MMIO directly rather than through the
>>   syscon & regmap.

.. which I might not even connect to binding patches. I see only one
entry regarding bindings in your changelog, so I find it not much
informative.

For the future, please state that you ignore tags for given reason.

> 
> That change means important changes to the dt-bindings to adapt to this
> new behavior. In particular we now have reg and reg-names properties
> that got added and made required.
> 
> I wanted to have your review on that and did not want to tag the patch
> as already reviewed.

Makes sense, but how can I know it? Other people often ignore the tags,
so safe assumption is that it happened here as well.

> 
>>
>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>>
>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
>>
>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new
>> versions, under or above your Signed-off-by tag. Tag is "received", when
>> provided in a message replied to you on the mailing list. Tools like b4
>> can help here. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add
>> the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for tags received on the
>> version they apply.
>>
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
>>
>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
> 
> As an aside, what's your preference on location for this information?
> Cover letter changelog? Following '---' in the specific commit message?
> Somewhere else?

Both are accepted, but if you do it in cover letter, it should be
obvious for the reader that patches XYZ were changed. It's not.

Best regards,
Krzysztof