On 19/03/2024 22:19, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi Prabhakar, > > On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 11:05:40PM +0000, Lad, Prabhakar wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 11:58 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> On 08/03/2024 18:27, Prabhakar wrote: >>>> With the fallback string being utilized by multiple other SoCs, this >>>> patch updates the comment for the generic compatible string. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Reviewed-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Really, you review a comment change? Internally? >>> >>> Is this some sort of company policy? Are these even true reviews? >>> >> Yes this patch was reviewed internally and it's "real". Unfortunately >> I cannot share the repo externally where this review was done but I >> can assure it was reviewed. As this is not a single patch all the >> patches in this series were internally reviewed. Is it bad to review a >> comment change? >> BTW what makes you think I have added fake review tags? > > I don't believe Krzysztof is questioning the validity of your > offline reviews, but the community is unaware of what happens > in your closed environment. > > If you submit a patch with the r-b tag, it holds little > significance for me since I haven't witnessed the review process > myself. However, you are, of course, free to include it; I have > no objections to that. > > My suggestion is for Fabrizio to publicly express his review on > this mailing list, which would add more value to the time he > spent reviewing your patch. > > By the way, there are other companies that do this. > To me seeing such reviews of a trivial comment patch means reviews are fake, just to fulfill the process. Especially done internally. Kind of "patchset looks good, so +1 in Gerrit" (it does not matter if you use Gerrit or not...). I don't consider them reviews, but useless company policies. Provide real review or do not provide one at all. And provide it public, so work with the community, not your inside systems. Best regards, Krzysztof
