RE: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers: fwnode: Extend device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers: fwnode: Extend
> device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type
> 
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 01:58:55PM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers: fwnode: Extend
> > > device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 01:19:02PM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers: fwnode: Extend
> > > > > device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type On Mon, Jul 24, 2023
> > > > > at 12:02:27PM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers: fwnode: Extend
> > > > > > > device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type On Sun, Jul 23,
> > > > > > > 2023 at 09:37:20AM +0100, Biju Das wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can't just throw one's SoB tag without clear
> > > > > > > understanding what's going on here (either wrong authorship
> > > > > > > or missing Co-developed-by or...?).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitry feels instead of having separate bus based match_data()
> > > > > > like i2c_get_match_data[2] and spi_get_device_match_data[3],
> > > > > > it is better to have a generic approach like a single API
> > > > > > device_get_match_data() for getting match_data for
> > > > > > OF/ACPI/I2C/SPI
> > > tables.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, he came with a proposal and shared some code here[1].
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I'm pretty much following the discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Since,I have send this patch, I put my signed -off.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not talking about this. There is no evidence that Dmitry
> > > > > gives you any approval to use or clear SoB tag. Again, you may
> > > > > not do like
> > > this.
> > > >
> > > > Here Dmitry is acknowledging, he is ok with the patch I posted.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, you just misinterpreted his message.
> > >
> >
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > As you are the author of code, either you post a patch or provide your
> SoB as per the guideline mentioned here to avoid confusion.
> >
> >
> It was not really proper patch, consider it as an email with parts
> written in unified diff, as sometimes it is easier than to explain in
> words, and I do not want to take much credit for it.
> 
> If you wish you can put "Suggested-by" for me, or just drop my name off
> the patch description altogether.

Sure, will add Suggested-by tag.

Cheers,
Biju




[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux