linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/panel: sony-td4353-jdi: transition to mipi

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Xn=ZztJVGA46eeRn442BnPAOwefwNid6Lm5ZHnLuCZcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 11:14:46 -0800
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>
Cc: neil.armstrong@...aro.org, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, 
	mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, 
	quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/panel: sony-td4353-jdi: transition to mipi_dsi
 wrapped functions

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 8:46 PM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/15/25 6:12 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 9:30 AM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Change the sony-td4353-jdi panel to use multi style functions for
> >> improved error handling.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-sony-td4353-jdi.c | 107 ++++--------------
> >>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)
> >
> > Nice diffstat and so much boilerplate error code removed. :-)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>
> If I rebase both the patches into 1, should I still add the Reviewed-by
> tag?

Sorry, I was away, but it looks like you've sent v2 anyway and what
you did there is fine. In this case my "Reviewed-by" for the second
patch was more me helping myself keep track of the fact that I'd
already looked at all the contents on this patch and I was happy with
it.

For the record, most of the time it seems like you're expected to just
"guess" a bit what a reviewer would want. The absolute safest thing
you can do is to remove the "Reviewed-by" (like you did) but then also
"after the cut" in your new patch (like where you put version history)
indicate why you didn't carry the Reviewed-by. Like you could say:

NOTE: removed Doug's review tag in v2 because it was only provided for
one of the two patches that were squashed together.

Then if I wondered why you didn't carry my tag I'd have my answer.
Some reviewers get upset if you don't carry their tag forward and you
don't explain why you didn't. ;-)

-Doug