Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drivers: fwnode: Extend device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 01:19:02PM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > 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@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > 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@bp.renesas.com/#25437032

No, you just misinterpreted his message.

See https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin
for the explanation. The SoB has to be explicitly given. Dmitry had _not_
put it like this.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko