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 C3527C43219 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:53:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239063AbiBWIxn (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 03:53:43 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33210 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232440AbiBWIxn (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 03:53:43 -0500 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com (esa.microchip.iphmx.com [68.232.154.123]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7CBD65780; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:53:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1645606396; x=1677142396; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gf7fLnuz2/+PWrNrtqGk1PKFdI0hQYHsrfCkNF3N2OE=; b=wfa74g05p79C6sjxL3xJ82DiO5q4vDUA2aprhaAcKbq0sipbcQXCuCJV UDz7Xo4806bIa+1v5X9/tdXNYEaROAPRUZR+eXa1ePKaA1OAhubZpKYP1 purYunz0Zl500zH4BtKtISVV7cRteONTGkwwVO2JbFmg07PPSdVZXA0pf 4FGkpPbi0k0eEValV5eQDH+9khs4ZH2XnSMbHsdodl3G69hkH02q4PDji J9Wj3A3JLktAqqQrDiXRyleiSpmFCVwbkl9PHMh1PmxYFyzpj+t2j0lnW Q8dZXQDI5xIU3dQrtkaQI0OAX9ieIE8SVZC9OaL8lLLUV3hgFTMGwQu4+ A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,390,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="149703384" Received: from smtpout.microchip.com (HELO email.microchip.com) ([198.175.253.82]) by esa2.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 23 Feb 2022 01:53:14 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex01.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.143) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.17; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 01:53:14 -0700 Received: from wendy.microchip.com (10.10.115.15) by chn-vm-ex01.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.2375.17 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 01:53:09 -0700 From: To: , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/11] dt-bindings: pwm: add microchip corepwm binding Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:55:10 +0000 Message-ID: <20220223085509.3664942-1-conor.dooley@microchip.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.35.1 In-Reply-To: <20220223082018.degrftmxpk5uc6xn@pengutronix.de> References: <20220223082018.degrftmxpk5uc6xn@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 23/02/2022 08:20, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 08:12:49AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 23/02/2022 07:20, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:58:35PM +0000, conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote: > > >> From: Conor Dooley > > >> > > >> Add device tree bindings for the Microchip fpga fabric based "core" PWM > > >> controller. > > >> > > >> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring > > >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley > > >> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt > > > > > > I like it: > > > > > > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König > > > > > > nitpick: Put your S-o-b last in the commit log. (This doesn't justify a > > > resend IMHO) > > > > It should be the opposite - the first. First author signs the patch, > > then comes review and finally an ack. Putting SoB at then suggests that > > tags were accumulated before sending patch, out of mailing list. > > well, or in an earlier revision of this patch as is the case here. One > of the ideas of S-o-b is that the order shows the flow of the patch > states and if this patch ends in git with: > > Referred-by: Rob Herring > Singed-off-by: Conor Dooley > Backed-by: Palmer Dabbelt > Singed-off-by: Peter Maintainer > > I'd expect that Backed-by was added by Peter, not Conor. > (Modified the tags on purpose to not interfere with b4's tag pickup, I > guess you humans still get the point.) I had put the acks after the S-o-B for patches I hadn't changed since the ack, but I think that may have been a misinterpretation of what was meant by Rob when he said tags should be in chronological order. Won't do it this way in the future. If the remaining patch gets a maintainer ack, the order will be fine I guess since it'll be Palmer taking it anyway. If there's a v8, I will fix the order. Thanks, Conor