linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire

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: <CAFXKEHbJ_5unY24aZeutvM-xrjevQ=z7ngDcgwJR=NXzXONx5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:05:59 +0100
From: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: lars@...afoo.de, Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, jic23@...nel.org, 
	robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, 
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eraretuya@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 7:32 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2024 16:33, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
> > Add spi-3wire because the driver optionally supports spi-3wire.
>
> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>
> It seems my or other reviewer's previous comments were not fully
> addressed. Maybe the feedback got lost between the quotes, maybe you
> just forgot to apply it. Please go back to the previous discussion and
> either implement all requested changes or keep discussing them.
>
> Thank you.
>

You refer yourself to the above mentioned wording. Would replacing
"driver" by "device" in the dt-bindings patch comment be sufficient?
Did I miss something else?

> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>
> > ---
>
> 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

Just for confirmation: when I receive a feedback, requesting a change.
And, I accept the change request. This means, I received a tag
"Reviewed-by" which I have to mention in the upcoming patch version
where this change is implemented and in that particular patch?

> the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for tags received on the
> version they apply.
>

I'm pretty sure we will still see further iterations. So, I apply the
tags in the next version, already scheduled. Ok?

> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
>

Going over the books I feel it does not make sense to still mention
feedback ("Reveiewed-by") for the v1 or v2 of the patch here in a v5,
does it? Your link mentiones "However if the patch has changed
substantially in followin version, these tags might not be applicable
anymore"
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L579

> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

I give it a try with b4. Let's see.