On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:50:43AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > On Mon 21 Feb 16:07 CST 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: > > > > > Some PMIC functions such as the RRADC need to be aware of the PMIC > > > chip revision information to implement errata or otherwise adjust > > > behaviour, export the PMIC information to enable this. > > > > > > This is specifically required to enable the RRADC to adjust > > > coefficients based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, > > > this can vary per unique device and therefore has to be read at > > > runtime. > > > > > > [bugs in previous revision] > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This says is that "kernel test robot" and Dan reported that something > > needed to be fixed and this patch is the fix for this. > > > > So even though their emails asks for you to give them credit like this > > you can't do it for new patches. > > Right, or else you'd have to give credit to anyone who provided you > with a review. This could potentially grow to quite a long list. > I always feel like people who find crashing bugs should get credit but no credit for complaining about style. It's like we reward people for reporting bugs after it gets merged but not before. We've had this debate before and people don't agree with me or they say that it's fine to just include the Reported-by kbuild tags and let people figure out from the context that probably kbuild didn't tell people to write a new driver. Also I think that counting Reviewed-by/Acked-by tags should be discouraged. It's useful as a communication between maintainers but it shouldn't be rewarded. regards, dan carpenter
