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]

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:40:14 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>
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 25/03/2024 22:05, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
> 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?

Yes, the wording, but isn't the device require 3-wire mode? Don't just
replace one word with another, but write the proper rationale for your
hardware.

> 
>>>
>>> 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?

Please go through the docs. Yes, you received a tag which should be
included with the change.

Reviewer's feedback should not be ignored.


> 
>> 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

I don't understand. When did you receive the tag? v3, right? So what do
you mean by v1 and v2?


Best regards,
Krzysztof