linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] leds: add new LED driver for TI LP5812

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250320155012.GT3890718@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:50:12 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Nam Tran <trannamatk@...il.com>
Cc: krzk+dt@...nel.org, pavel@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] leds: add new LED driver for TI LP5812

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025, Nam Tran wrote:

> From: Nam Tran <trannamatk@...il.com>
> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org> Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
> 
> I sincerely apologize for not addressing all of your previous comments earlier. That was not my intention, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing my patch. Below, I would like to properly address your concerns.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:21:26AM +0700, Nam Tran wrote:
> > The chip can drive LED matrix 4x3.
> > This driver enables LED control via I2C.
> 
> You still did not respond to comments from v1. I don't see it being addressed.
> 
> Nam: I am sorry. This is my mistake. I think that I just need to update source code based on your comments and submit a new patch. This is the first time I try to update a new thing to the Linux Kernel. I will give answer inline your message for tracing easily.

For the record, I find this format pretty unreadable.

Please reply directly to the email you are responding to.  This response
looks as though you're replying to the patch itself.

Configure your mailer to refrain from placing header information (To:
Cc: From: etc) in the body of the mail.

If your mailer conducts quoting correctly, there should be no need for
"Nam:" comments.  For me it looks as though you authored both the review
comment and the response, since your mailer currently does not handle
quoting correctly.

It would help everyone out if you could configure your mailer correctly.

Maybe this document has additional hints for you particular mailer:

  Documentation/process/email-clients.rst

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]