On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:35:16AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > The commit 2a6c0b82e651 ("USB: PHY: JZ4770: Add support for new
> > Ingenic SoCs.") introduced the initialization function for different
> > chips, but left the relevant code involved in the resetting process
> > in the original function, resulting in uninitialized variable calls.
>
> * Can another imperative wording be helpful for the change description?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=d012a7190fc1fd72ed48911e77ca97ba4521bccd#n151
>
> * How do you think about to mention any source code analysis tool here?
>
> * Would an other commit subject be more appropriate?
>
>
> > Fixes: 2a6c0b82e651 ("USB: PHY: JZ4770: Add support for new
> > Ingenic SoCs.").
>
> Please omit a line break for this tag.
>
>
> I find that a single patch would not need a cover letter.
Hi,
This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.
Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
