On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:40 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > It does not require 3-wire SPI. By default the device communicates regular SPI. It can be configured, though, to communicate 3-wire. The given patch offers this as option in the DT. > > > >>> > >>> 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? > V1: The first version of the 3wire patch. I have split the single patch upon some feedback (yours?!) - V2... So, my current interpretation is, that every feedback I need to mention as Reviewed-by tag, no? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
