On 14/02/2023 09:43, Hector Martin wrote: > On 14/02/2023 16.50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 14/02/2023 03:24, Hector Martin wrote: >>> On 13/02/2023 20.09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 12/02/2023 16:41, Janne Grunau wrote: >>>>> From: Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> Add the apple,t8112-pmgr-pwrstate compatible for the Apple M2 SoC. >>>>> >>>>> This goes after t8103. The sort order logic here is having SoC numeric >>>>> code families in release order, and SoCs within each family in release >>>>> order: >>>>> >>>>> - t8xxx (Apple HxxP/G series, "phone"/"tablet" chips) >>>>> - t8103 (Apple H13G/M1) >>>>> - t8112 (Apple H14G/M2) >>>>> - t6xxx (Apple HxxJ series, "desktop" chips) >>>>> - t6000 (Apple H13J(S)/M1 Pro) >>>>> - t6001 (Apple H13J(C)/M1 Max) >>>>> - t6002 (Apple H13J(D)/M1 Ultra) >>>>> >>>>> Note that t600[0-2] share the t6000 compatible where the hardware is >>>>> 100% compatible, which is usually the case in this highly related set >>>>> of SoCs. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Missing SoB. >>>> >>> >>> I'd rather get an r-b, since this is going back into my tree ;) >> >> Please follow Linux process which requires SoB chain. > > A SoB is not an r-b. I do not upstream patches that are unreviewed. I > wrote the patch. Someone needs to review it. > > The extra SoB is redundant because this is going back into my tree, I > wrote it, and I will be the committer when I apply it. It's a one-liner > patch. I know what I wrote. Sure we could record Janne's SoB as a > technicality, but it feels silly. What matters more is that the patch > gets reviewed, not that on a patch series technicality it ended up being > Janne who sent it to the list. I could just pull the patch from my own > branch and then it didn't go through Janne so it doesn't need his SoB. > But it does need someone's review (because I absolutely refuse to merge > my own patches without review, although not every maintainer has that > policy unfortunately, which means there's lots of unreviewed code in the > kernel). > > Please. Let's cut down on the silliness. Please. We're trying to get > stuff done here. I'm tired of having to explain every little thing over > and over and over again. I really am. Listen, I have no clue whether Janne changed the patch or not. She might have rebased it or not. The chain expects that anyone touching the patch must leave SoB. I am not providing my reviewes for patches breaking the process we have clearly described. I also do not see any problem in following the process we have - adding SoB whenever you play with a patch and send it. Entire discussion is silly indeed, instead of just following the process. Best regards, Krzysztof
