Re: [PATCH v8 2/9] mfd: qcom-spmi-pmic: expose the PMIC revid information to clients

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 02:20:58AM +0000, Caleb Connolly wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 <lkp@intel.com>
> > > > > > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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?

Just leave it out.  Those are automated emails and I just look them
over and hit forward or delete.

The thing is that I've been arguing for a new Fixes-from: tag since
before the kbuild-bot existed and on the last kernel summit email list
someone said to just use Reported-by so I've been trying to help people
consider that as an option...

regards,
dan carpenter