> 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
