On Thu, 03 Mar 2022, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 02:20:58AM +0000, Caleb Connolly wrote: > > > > > > On 25/02/2022 09:40, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:23:24AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:50:43AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 21 Feb 16:07 CST 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some PMIC functions such as the RRADC need to be aware of the PMIC > > > > > > > > chip revision information to implement errata or otherwise adjust > > > > > > > > behaviour, export the PMIC information to enable this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is specifically required to enable the RRADC to adjust > > > > > > > > coefficients based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, > > > > > > > > this can vary per unique device and therefore has to be read at > > > > > > > > runtime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [bugs in previous revision] > > > > > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This says is that "kernel test robot" and Dan reported that something > > > > > > > needed to be fixed and this patch is the fix for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So even though their emails asks for you to give them credit like this > > > > > > > you can't do it for new patches. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, or else you'd have to give credit to anyone who provided you > > > > > > with a review. This could potentially grow to quite a long list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always feel like people who find crashing bugs should get credit but > > > > > no credit for complaining about style. It's like we reward people for > > > > > reporting bugs after it gets merged but not before. > > > > > > > > > > We've had this debate before and people don't agree with me or they say > > > > > that it's fine to just include the Reported-by kbuild tags and let > > > > > people figure out from the context that probably kbuild didn't tell > > > > > people to write a new driver. > > > > > > > > Reviews will often consist of both style and logic recommendations. > > > > If not spotted and remedied, the latter of which would likely result > > > > in undesired behaviour a.k.a. bugs. So at what point, or what type of > > > > bug would warrant a tag? > > > > > > > > > > If it's a crash or memory leak. Style comments and fixing typos are > > > their own reward. Basically it's the same rule as Fixes tags. We > > > shouldn't use Fixes tags for typos. > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > How (if at all) would you like me to reference the bug reported by LKP > > in my next revision of this patch? It doesn't seem like a fixed conclusion > > was reached here. > > > > It seems like Reported-by doesn't really represent things well, perhaps we > > could try for "Bugchecked-by" or something like that? > > Just leave it out. Those are automated emails and I just look them > over and hit forward or delete. > > The thing is that I've been arguing for a new Fixes-from: tag since > before the kbuild-bot existed and on the last kernel summit email list > someone said to just use Reported-by so I've been trying to help people > consider that as an option... Nothing wrong with using Reported-by if located chronologically and annotated correctly. Example was provided in a previous mail. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
