On 25/02/2022 09:40, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:23:24AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Dan Carpenter wrote:
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.
Reviews will often consist of both style and logic recommendations.
If not spotted and remedied, the latter of which would likely result
in undesired behaviour a.k.a. bugs. So at what point, or what type of
bug would warrant a tag?
If it's a crash or memory leak. Style comments and fixing typos are
their own reward. Basically it's the same rule as Fixes tags. We
shouldn't use Fixes tags for typos.
Hi Dan,
How (if at all) would you like me to reference the bug reported by LKP
in my next revision of this patch? It doesn't seem like a fixed conclusion
was reached here.
It seems like Reported-by doesn't really represent things well, perhaps we
could try for "Bugchecked-by" or something like that?
regards,
dan carpenter
--
Kind Regards,
Caleb (they/them)
