From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A06C4332F for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:21:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231639AbiCCCVs (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2022 21:21:48 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42126 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231634AbiCCCVq (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2022 21:21:46 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60A2341F95 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 18:21:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id r187-20020a1c44c4000000b00386f2897400so58144wma.5 for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:21:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YosZDFeXptiC33UXbPIO0HEuSbJGy65IpZJdV/TWjgA=; b=jJLZI5i0Ck0+Hnj3y884WZHhITW8HQovIkoV5aAHRABzbqczKw9z6z+RJ5ewkazcd7 IHmrZ2zoeDHxaObWeZLJEtPkJT/26E6uBRGaHrEae9SbkZqRMn8KbqoVcHsYZQqUdJr3 6/4NFCe2idaJZsmnTpiVWS8A+pBL+4icdywp5dezEkQ0j/RqnxPNbgzNDvSGkm2H+PRW C/xXpTUJ7wnZ5ZGQFK3t2VyjrpZvmMeJ1YDyUslaipStNJ1yJBG5AZSq7uy6keo2no5v gaxU55v49fSFFEg2xrm2f1ALojVkXQzDitOftK0G+QNiIeZMKcpyVR7wXg6Puugvx9i9 /dAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YosZDFeXptiC33UXbPIO0HEuSbJGy65IpZJdV/TWjgA=; b=11QnNl5ABYMoIhYbAk0i8m3S6UWILJD0lxMWvc2PgJj5cw2TVvJzXg9VMP57qoBtfo he/vSW3mRskxcCR69+tiJI2oacSQhmnRPFayHJzV4WFh8WlO2k33tj45knzHeIBrWN4Y QSWQWdDdAXxYGAzJlxHqe/aIO1ouSZCUXJeZzAy0PHf1iyJK31/3SxA8lpMloqngJO2a RpytyPxzFmDXotgvWHTv4Psgu6EOXlGj6NGRU9o3OHfokYIPphNXJlGpck2eb9y7IpUR 8Uk7NHWGU/QfpmxovGDl1i8OT7NASHUa6Lv9B+AIPktcKQyTXF5KvfHUzzff6wpQSX11 8IPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Ruydkwd5bkpPBhxPUpajEtyjO3CCrfrwJgrtCm0nx7ALu31wb MCsDxDN58VW6dQHYyeThVTS7Sg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzzoGXhCa62ixTrNDgr3R2pGQv07jzN3IzEfK/mCFmqw7kJa7Z5BTZkznSfdPqdFP/YknehtQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:190c:b0:37d:1f40:34c2 with SMTP id j12-20020a05600c190c00b0037d1f4034c2mr1989927wmq.115.1646274059881; Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.30] (cpc78119-cwma10-2-0-cust590.7-3.cable.virginm.net. [81.96.50.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k184-20020a1ca1c1000000b0038617ae5297sm2268503wme.33.2022.03.02.18.20.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:20:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:20:58 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/9] mfd: qcom-spmi-pmic: expose the PMIC revid information to clients Content-Language: en-US To: Dan Carpenter , Lee Jones Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Jonathan Cameron , Lars-Peter Clausen , Rob Herring , Andy Gross , Stephen Boyd , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, sumit.semwal@linaro.org, amit.pundir@linaro.org, john.stultz@linaro.org, kernel test robot References: <20220221220743.541704-1-caleb.connolly@linaro.org> <20220221220743.541704-3-caleb.connolly@linaro.org> <20220225090452.GP3943@kadam> <20220225094024.GQ3943@kadam> From: Caleb Connolly In-Reply-To: <20220225094024.GQ3943@kadam> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 25/02/2022 09:40, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:23:24AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:50:43AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: >>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon 21 Feb 16:07 CST 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Some PMIC functions such as the RRADC need to be aware of the PMIC >>>>>> chip revision information to implement errata or otherwise adjust >>>>>> behaviour, export the PMIC information to enable this. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is specifically required to enable the RRADC to adjust >>>>>> coefficients based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, >>>>>> this can vary per unique device and therefore has to be read at >>>>>> runtime. >>>>>> >>>>>> [bugs in previous revision] >>>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot >>>>>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter >>>>> >>>>> This says is that "kernel test robot" and Dan reported that something >>>>> needed to be fixed and this patch is the fix for this. >>>>> >>>>> So even though their emails asks for you to give them credit like this >>>>> you can't do it for new patches. >>>> >>>> Right, or else you'd have to give credit to anyone who provided you >>>> with a review. This could potentially grow to quite a long list. >>>> >>> >>> I always feel like people who find crashing bugs should get credit but >>> no credit for complaining about style. It's like we reward people for >>> reporting bugs after it gets merged but not before. >>> >>> We've had this debate before and people don't agree with me or they say >>> that it's fine to just include the Reported-by kbuild tags and let >>> people figure out from the context that probably kbuild didn't tell >>> people to write a new driver. >> >> Reviews will often consist of both style and logic recommendations. >> If not spotted and remedied, the latter of which would likely result >> in undesired behaviour a.k.a. bugs. So at what point, or what type of >> bug would warrant a tag? >> > > If it's a crash or memory leak. Style comments and fixing typos are > their own reward. Basically it's the same rule as Fixes tags. We > shouldn't use Fixes tags for typos. Hi Dan, How (if at all) would you like me to reference the bug reported by LKP in my next revision of this patch? It doesn't seem like a fixed conclusion was reached here. It seems like Reported-by doesn't really represent things well, perhaps we could try for "Bugchecked-by" or something like that? > > regards, > dan carpenter > -- Kind Regards, Caleb (they/them)