On 25/03/2024 22:05, Lothar Rubusch wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 7:32 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 25/03/2024 16:33, Lothar Rubusch wrote: >>> Add spi-3wire because the driver optionally supports spi-3wire. >> >> This is a friendly reminder during the review process. >> >> It seems my or other reviewer's previous comments were not fully >> addressed. Maybe the feedback got lost between the quotes, maybe you >> just forgot to apply it. Please go back to the previous discussion and >> either implement all requested changes or keep discussing them. >> >> Thank you. >> > > You refer yourself to the above mentioned wording. Would replacing > "driver" by "device" in the dt-bindings patch comment be sufficient? > Did I miss something else? Yes, the wording, but isn't the device require 3-wire mode? Don't just replace one word with another, but write the proper rationale for your hardware. > >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >> >> This is a friendly reminder during the review process. >> >> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it. >> >> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: >> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new >> versions, under or above your Signed-off-by tag. Tag is "received", when >> provided in a message replied to you on the mailing list. Tools like b4 >> can help here. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add > > Just for confirmation: when I receive a feedback, requesting a change. > And, I accept the change request. This means, I received a tag > "Reviewed-by" which I have to mention in the upcoming patch version > where this change is implemented and in that particular patch? Please go through the docs. Yes, you received a tag which should be included with the change. Reviewer's feedback should not be ignored. > >> the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for tags received on the >> version they apply. >> > > I'm pretty sure we will still see further iterations. So, I apply the > tags in the next version, already scheduled. Ok? > >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577 >> > > Going over the books I feel it does not make sense to still mention > feedback ("Reveiewed-by") for the v1 or v2 of the patch here in a v5, > does it? Your link mentiones "However if the patch has changed I don't understand. When did you receive the tag? v3, right? So what do you mean by v1 and v2? Best regards, Krzysztof
