On 17/12/2024 01:00, yuji2.ishikawa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello Krzysztof > > Thank you for your review > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 7:08 PM >> To: ishikawa yuji(石川 悠司 ○ＲＤＣ□ＡＩＴＣ○ＥＡ開) >> <yuji2.ishikawa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Laurent Pinchart >> <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mauro Carvalho Chehab >> <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski >> <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sakari Ailus >> <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx>; >> iwamatsu nobuhiro(岩松 信洋 ○ＤＩＴＣ□ＤＩＴ○ＯＳＴ) >> <nobuhiro1.iwamatsu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/8] dt-bindings: media: platform: visconti: Add >> Toshiba Visconti Video Input Interface >> >> On 25/11/2024 10:21, Yuji Ishikawa wrote: >>> Adds the Device Tree binding documentation that allows to describe the >>> Video Input Interface found in Toshiba Visconti SoCs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yuji Ishikawa <yuji2.ishikawa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro1.iwamatsu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Why this tag stayed and other was removed? What was the reason of tag >> removal? >> > > The stayed tag is due to internal review. Did the internal review really happened? How is it that immediately new version has internal review without any traces? I have doubts this review happened in the context of reviewer's statement of oversight. > The removed tag is due to code's change (split of csi2rx part) after the last review. > If the code is largely changed following the instruction of another reviewer > after obtaining the tags, how should the tags be handled? Drop all reviews and perform reviews on the list. Such internal review appearing afterwards is rather a proof it you are adding just the tags to satisfy your process. I have no way to even verify whether that person performed any reasonable review or maybe just acked your patch. I cannot even verify that that person understands the reviewer's statement of oversight. ... >>> >>> Changelog v11: >>> - no change >>> >>> Changelog v12: >>> - remove property "clock-noncontinuous" as VIIF switches both modes >>> automatically >>> - remove property "link-frequencies" as VIIF does not use the >>> information >> >> Driver does not use or hardware supports only one frequency? >> > > My comment was incorrect. > It should be "Driver does not use the information" Then this is not that helping. Maybe hardware supports only one frequency? Best regards, Krzysztof
