Hi Andy, Thanks for the feedback. > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers: fwnode: Extend > device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 12:02:27PM +0000, Biju Das wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers: fwnode: Extend > > > device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at > > > 09:37:20AM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > ... > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > You can't just throw one's SoB tag without clear understanding > > > what's going on here (either wrong authorship or missing > > > Co-developed-by or...?). > > > > Dmitry feels instead of having separate bus based match_data() like > > i2c_get_match_data[2] and spi_get_device_match_data[3], it is better > > to have a generic approach like a single API device_get_match_data() > > for getting match_data for OF/ACPI/I2C/SPI tables. > > > > So, he came with a proposal and shared some code here[1]. > > Yes, I'm pretty much following the discussion. > > > Since,I have send this patch, I put my signed -off. > > I'm not talking about this. There is no evidence that Dmitry gives you > any approval to use or clear SoB tag. Again, you may not do like this. Here Dmitry is acknowledging, he is ok with the patch I posted. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/patch/20230717131756.240645-2-biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#25437032 Cheers, Biju
