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. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin Cheers, Biju
