Message-ID: <CAFXKEHaEVwiAW9co0+=kZ5w5a8eWg3QL0dmg38bvrmLdnBEA7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:09:14 +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 10:40 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
It does not require 3-wire SPI. By default the device communicates
regular SPI. It can be configured, though, to communicate 3-wire. The
given patch offers this as option in the DT.

> >
> >>>
> >>> 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?
>

V1: The first version of the 3wire patch. I have split the single
patch upon some feedback (yours?!) - V2... So, my current
interpretation is, that every feedback I need to mention as
Reviewed-by tag, no?

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists