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

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 01:58:55PM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> 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 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.
> > >
> > 
> > No, you just misinterpreted his message.
> > 
> 
> Dmitry,
> 
> As you are the author of code, either you post a patch or provide your SoB as per the guideline mentioned here to avoid confusion.
> 
>  https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin

It was not really proper patch, consider it as an email with parts
written in unified diff, as sometimes it is easier than to explain in
words, and I do not want to take much credit for it.

If you wish you can put "Suggested-by" for me, or just drop my name off
the patch description altogether.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry