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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85625C2D0EA for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 07:36:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4EF206A1 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 07:36:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gerhold.net header.i=@gerhold.net header.b="rjfLrzj2" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725932AbgDHHgT (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:36:19 -0400 Received: from mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([85.215.255.54]:33319 "EHLO mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725763AbgDHHgT (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:36:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1586331375; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=gerhold.net; h=In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=sjnB8w1eg3xxKwvMLCRQkJECWsSSDwKnucOYw682BT8=; b=rjfLrzj21oEGMXHJsrWhM+bziAdnhuwHI/tuY57+5xA3mgRl6nf/dVsx03Cwzh2RTb H1lWFZoL/v8s3WoNGo/BROyu0Cvmdl+1GsezyZhwYdydupWOQWRjzvN0+k4ey6zxZRRL bIweLHmZcqox7rC7U7YrLhmnxkDtl1eZz/ZHQgRYzMV/iep/HJiHYOSXR3Y0pAXoLuad nnwpacrUFEbjL+YLB3nTV2v1uGCP4XeLkKXuwR+D1LAO1WPi2JBtAaofnSqTnN07kKgs na4m7IIBk6W9g0INw+uNPoExgkOYMpTz3OBeNe9dmhqnSH/WGAzeRNLOsadVt9MBV1oO iZRQ== X-RZG-AUTH: ":P3gBZUipdd93FF5ZZvYFPugejmSTVR2nRPhVOQ/OcYgojyw4j34+u26zEodhPgRDZ8j7IcfFBg==" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from gerhold.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 46.2.1 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id u043b8w387a8EA4 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:36:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:36:03 +0200 From: Stephan Gerhold To: Andi Shyti Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: mms114: document melfas,mms345l binding Message-ID: <20200408073603.GA948@gerhold.net> References: <20200405170904.61512-1-stephan@gerhold.net> <20200405170904.61512-2-stephan@gerhold.net> <20200407215143.GD207210@jack.zhora.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200407215143.GD207210@jack.zhora.eu> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 12:51:43AM +0300, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi Stephan, > > On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 07:09:04PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > The mms114 driver now supports MMS345L; document the > > melfas,mms345l binding that is used for it. > > > > Acked-by: Rob Herring > > Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold > > just one nitpick, the signing should be sorted in chronological > order, I see that you reverted it. > > You first signed it as the author, then I reviewed it and the Rob > acked it, so that it should be: > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold > Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti > Acked-by: Rob Herring > > you reversed it. > I didn't really "reverse" it, I didn't know the order of these tags is important at all. :) Is this documented somewhere? Since I have added the tags and re-sent the patch, I thought it would make sense have my Signed-off-by last. I suppose this can be easily fixed up if Dmitry wants to apply the patch. But if I should re-send with the order changed in some way, just let me know. :) > Other than that, I'm sorry I couldn't help you but I haven't > received answers from Samsung about getting the prototypes. > However I don't see reason for not applying the patch. It's fine, don't worry :) I just think at this point we should either take my patch (and preserve existing behavior for all currently supported devices), or accept the potential breakage when refactoring the driver (because seemingly no-one is able to test it on the other versions at the moment). Thanks, Stephan