On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:05:47AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 13/02/2024 18:48, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello Rafał, > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > please make sure that the email address used for sending the patch > > matches the Signed-off-by line. > > > > (It depends on the pickyness of the relevant maintainer if that is a > > stopper or not.) > > Does not have to... It must match From field which is correct here. Rafał's Signed-off matches the author, but not the sender. Together with "the Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch." (from Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst) I'd say it's reasonable to request that there is a sign-off with the email matching the sender. In my understanding the Sign-off line by the author isn't really required because the sender can vouch for the author. Of course this is a somewhat artificial discussion if the sender is the same person as the author and only the email addresses differ. So this about the strictness of the applying maintainer. FTR: $ curl -s https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/20240213164633.25447-1-zajec5@xxxxxxxxx/raw | grep -E '^(From|Signed-off-by):' From: =?UTF-8?q?Rafa=C5=82=20Mi=C5=82ecki?= <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> the first From: is the sender, the second the author. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
