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

[Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>]

On Fri 25 Feb 01:04 PST 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.
> 

I certainly would like to be able to recognize any form of review effort
going into the evolution of a patch, but if we use Reported-by for that
purpose we're loosing the ability to credit the effort to find the
regressions in the kernel.


And while it's clear that Reported-by could mean that you spotted a bug
in a previous revision of the patch, should this then be used to denote
anyone that came with any sort of feedback?

Do we want to "repurpose" Reported-by to be a list of anyone providing
any input to any previous revision of the patches? (Reported-by doesn't
sound like the right tag for that to me)

> Also I think that counting Reviewed-by/Acked-by tags should be
> discouraged.  It's useful as a communication between maintainers but it
> shouldn't be rewarded.
> 

For acked-by I definitely agree. At least in my subsystems I see a quite
good flow of Reviewed-bys from community members and am very happy about
that. It communicates that people approves of the patch, in contrast to
the more common case of no one dissaproving the patch and it's merged
just with my S-o-b...

Regards,
Bjorn