From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qv1-f52.google.com (mail-qv1-f52.google.com [209.85.219.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FBF35820E for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:14:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713885263; cv=none; b=Y9sso8QRiZn9sgKKFOsGHEcWLwgfj8iGcArnR2Pn5IOv8ZLEv/fFFbUEGqdZUwE38uu5ikPQKlHBKiTowX15fO+QZiagqN7SJDNWfKemc8l1MhmevxOwGYIHDnYlETrjSD+RpLf+XhtHxB20t2q4Zzmj8Fq5ybErh3J0mkAAoQ0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713885263; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FmcUrgr2QhR85uvObL/TwaxuOD6253fInA5B3YG+4wQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=NxkH4nAlhC7FYA30Z1SMN+ONgxnxr7csKkQQ9gXrxW3pdu+KbTPEkreRgiZugxn4O+wxDlOUKnRUAk2jkiUIi7RSflzYMlPdMxfeNzKHxXtckt3hCcuOQRXJD9agBLSkJOiWQmubyMZUtEWOdVkg1m76rxtxQNISJbkFgRZkJuU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=jMMCVTSI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="jMMCVTSI" Received: by mail-qv1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-69b44071a07so49169876d6.3 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:14:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1713885261; x=1714490061; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:content-language :references:cc:to:from:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yVGw/aT+gSSToVgtDfAm7R/0kBOtfa5rCAHOzCIzGCw=; b=jMMCVTSInNhQxSUS/dVOpxVENvzsze5hsyUWZvlfr14FQb/KGV3calJl3o0cxD1KFI MbBHJar44dBK+RffSezthX4cwWMdP43wnAlW0qnpU60JoWVa23Nv1Cjxr7G+bhjJD5XB Kb225QeW/VCjUvsNcyQnsR2AYj683JXH8PlXgCNwgjkpveuFqeyeI2DxZxSECC5S0m5S egHRAW/6/4zLT8gOfB92WT1LWKz9K22ceVLJUu9pvBgJQPQUDnLQQlJnlcIHlWtftYnO APBChadm0MHFVFHi9qf3NgTM+RJXKcnL72OKTyXGTIymAgJ+mlY5a5nfq08pgnaX6RP8 kNEQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713885261; x=1714490061; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:content-language :references:cc:to:from:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=yVGw/aT+gSSToVgtDfAm7R/0kBOtfa5rCAHOzCIzGCw=; b=QwDSjrX2fIUUx5M33PX9Q5nide+82CWSVJwCBqE1rJUdX4KJA1jRw/3Buw2Z3MuGk5 nBVyDhDiF+q7TpDoNcIin2ZNhTDSiS0YXvSPahzuP/zeaOKgpvm0hdI9DH6766HSgiBE iIjuRxdIOJ2SQdtzgbFi7xdqEYe+uIiVzggjiasWXmXXcpvD/A96gPiP4X/qd0Yf4tgf T2rPTVTxw4d83D3PMtM+kUOo/VpezdBYBQT00phNwWbeq6sgB/gt9NOunjCJDTbt0Rq1 Gfrl891NzRbx6Wt4Yd5+fdDWb40M/gmL/8ImYKOnVMVHILe6+r9ugJu6UE9mk20cl1Cn R05w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWYNLjkI9kQR4SPLAnNU2MyZC9x9Z8iNQLy9zRlccOJK95IMOVlMgir/VUyf0cQZ3ale2Zi6fzeGe4SGceuAftk8XnyFizcN90RVhE= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzE1wuqq3Vk8oSszSPB/rIdZvlbXFcrX5hnESmVj8rlDZYiITMH 9iTVZ+bB223q3yXzmh8cfuCmfkQwUO/XMC/Wh9jC/EIhu6et6mQgXRVtSmHp5zA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFRCi8M1y4wts7rikUe6AuHEoUrzo5BqiQwzNYQ93pP5tgF8p7uSbGZOdkfX995eBOwI58cLg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:18ee:b0:69b:601f:8f02 with SMTP id ep14-20020a05621418ee00b0069b601f8f02mr14499709qvb.28.1713885261183; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] ([178.197.223.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r26-20020a0c8b9a000000b0069b445b07fbsm1828175qva.16.2024.04.23.08.14.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:14:16 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-input@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: input: sun4i-lradc-keys: Add H616 compatible From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Andre Przywara Cc: Hans de Goede , Dmitry Torokhov , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Chen-Yu Tsai , Jernej Skrabec , Samuel Holland , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, James McGregor References: <20240422164511.2488261-1-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20240422164511.2488261-2-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20240423111502.6e068887@donnerap.manchester.arm.com> <20240423135106.02ab4473@donnerap.manchester.arm.com> <1714205b-39cf-4803-b251-a35f6b9ab3e9@linaro.org> Content-Language: en-US Autocrypt: addr=krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org; keydata= xsFNBFVDQq4BEAC6KeLOfFsAvFMBsrCrJ2bCalhPv5+KQF2PS2+iwZI8BpRZoV+Bd5kWvN79 cFgcqTTuNHjAvxtUG8pQgGTHAObYs6xeYJtjUH0ZX6ndJ33FJYf5V3yXqqjcZ30FgHzJCFUu JMp7PSyMPzpUXfU12yfcRYVEMQrmplNZssmYhiTeVicuOOypWugZKVLGNm0IweVCaZ/DJDIH gNbpvVwjcKYrx85m9cBVEBUGaQP6AT7qlVCkrf50v8bofSIyVa2xmubbAwwFA1oxoOusjPIE J3iadrwpFvsZjF5uHAKS+7wHLoW9hVzOnLbX6ajk5Hf8Pb1m+VH/E8bPBNNYKkfTtypTDUCj NYcd27tjnXfG+SDs/EXNUAIRefCyvaRG7oRYF3Ec+2RgQDRnmmjCjoQNbFrJvJkFHlPeHaeS BosGY+XWKydnmsfY7SSnjAzLUGAFhLd/XDVpb1Een2XucPpKvt9ORF+48gy12FA5GduRLhQU vK4tU7ojoem/G23PcowM1CwPurC8sAVsQb9KmwTGh7rVz3ks3w/zfGBy3+WmLg++C2Wct6nM Pd8/6CBVjEWqD06/RjI2AnjIq5fSEH/BIfXXfC68nMp9BZoy3So4ZsbOlBmtAPvMYX6U8VwD TNeBxJu5Ex0Izf1NV9CzC3nNaFUYOY8KfN01X5SExAoVTr09ewARAQABzTRLcnp5c3p0b2Yg S296bG93c2tpIDxrcnp5c3p0b2Yua296bG93c2tpQGxpbmFyby5vcmc+wsGUBBMBCgA+FiEE m9B+DgxR+NWWd7dUG5NDfTtBYpsFAmI+BxMCGwMFCRRfreEFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwEC HgECF4AACgkQG5NDfTtBYptgbhAAjAGunRoOTduBeC7V6GGOQMYIT5n3OuDSzG1oZyM4kyvO XeodvvYv49/ng473E8ZFhXfrre+c1olbr1A8pnz9vKVQs9JGVa6wwr/6ddH7/yvcaCQnHRPK mnXyP2BViBlyDWQ71UC3N12YCoHE2cVmfrn4JeyK/gHCvcW3hUW4i5rMd5M5WZAeiJj3rvYh v8WMKDJOtZFXxwaYGbvFJNDdvdTHc2x2fGaWwmXMJn2xs1ZyFAeHQvrp49mS6PBQZzcx0XL5 cU9ZjhzOZDn6Apv45/C/lUJvPc3lo/pr5cmlOvPq1AsP6/xRXsEFX/SdvdxJ8w9KtGaxdJuf rpzLQ8Ht+H0lY2On1duYhmro8WglOypHy+TusYrDEry2qDNlc/bApQKtd9uqyDZ+rx8bGxyY qBP6bvsQx5YACI4p8R0J43tSqWwJTP/R5oPRQW2O1Ye1DEcdeyzZfifrQz58aoZrVQq+innR aDwu8qDB5UgmMQ7cjDSeAQABdghq7pqrA4P8lkA7qTG+aw8Z21OoAyZdUNm8NWJoQy8m4nUP gmeeQPRc0vjp5JkYPgTqwf08cluqO6vQuYL2YmwVBIbO7cE7LNGkPDA3RYMu+zPY9UUi/ln5 dcKuEStFZ5eqVyqVoZ9eu3RTCGIXAHe1NcfcMT9HT0DPp3+ieTxFx6RjY3kYTGLOwU0EVUNc NAEQAM2StBhJERQvgPcbCzjokShn0cRA4q2SvCOvOXD+0KapXMRFE+/PZeDyfv4dEKuCqeh0 hihSHlaxTzg3TcqUu54w2xYskG8Fq5tg3gm4kh1Gvh1LijIXX99ABA8eHxOGmLPRIBkXHqJY oHtCvPc6sYKNM9xbp6I4yF56xVLmHGJ61KaWKf5KKWYgA9kfHufbja7qR0c6H79LIsiYqf92 H1HNq1WlQpu/fh4/XAAaV1axHFt/dY/2kU05tLMj8GjeQDz1fHas7augL4argt4e+jum3Nwt yupodQBxncKAUbzwKcDrPqUFmfRbJ7ARw8491xQHZDsP82JRj4cOJX32sBg8nO2N5OsFJOcd 5IE9v6qfllkZDAh1Rb1h6DFYq9dcdPAHl4zOj9EHq99/CpyccOh7SrtWDNFFknCmLpowhct9 5ZnlavBrDbOV0W47gO33WkXMFI4il4y1+Bv89979rVYn8aBohEgET41SpyQz7fMkcaZU+ok/ +HYjC/qfDxT7tjKXqBQEscVODaFicsUkjheOD4BfWEcVUqa+XdUEciwG/SgNyxBZepj41oVq FPSVE+Ni2tNrW/e16b8mgXNngHSnbsr6pAIXZH3qFW+4TKPMGZ2rZ6zITrMip+12jgw4mGjy 5y06JZvA02rZT2k9aa7i9dUUFggaanI09jNGbRA/ABEBAAHCwXwEGAEKACYCGwwWIQSb0H4O DFH41ZZ3t1Qbk0N9O0FimwUCYDzvagUJFF+UtgAKCRAbk0N9O0Fim9JzD/0auoGtUu4mgnna oEEpQEOjgT7l9TVuO3Qa/SeH+E0m55y5Fjpp6ZToc481za3xAcxK/BtIX5Wn1mQ6+szfrJQ6 59y2io437BeuWIRjQniSxHz1kgtFECiV30yHRgOoQlzUea7FgsnuWdstgfWi6LxstswEzxLZ Sj1EqpXYZE4uLjh6dW292sO+j4LEqPYr53hyV4I2LPmptPE9Rb9yCTAbSUlzgjiyyjuXhcwM qf3lzsm02y7Ooq+ERVKiJzlvLd9tSe4jRx6Z6LMXhB21fa5DGs/tHAcUF35hSJrvMJzPT/+u /oVmYDFZkbLlqs2XpWaVCo2jv8+iHxZZ9FL7F6AHFzqEFdqGnJQqmEApiRqH6b4jRBOgJ+cY qc+rJggwMQcJL9F+oDm3wX47nr6jIsEB5ZftdybIzpMZ5V9v45lUwmdnMrSzZVgC4jRGXzsU EViBQt2CopXtHtYfPAO5nAkIvKSNp3jmGxZw4aTc5xoAZBLo0OV+Ezo71pg3AYvq0a3/oGRG KQ06ztUMRrj8eVtpImjsWCd0bDWRaaR4vqhCHvAG9iWXZu4qh3ipie2Y0oSJygcZT7H3UZxq fyYKiqEmRuqsvv6dcbblD8ZLkz1EVZL6djImH5zc5x8qpVxlA0A0i23v5QvN00m6G9NFF0Le D2GYIS41Kv4Isx2dEFh+/Q== In-Reply-To: <1714205b-39cf-4803-b251-a35f6b9ab3e9@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 23/04/2024 16:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> >>>> Compared the descriptions in the manual between the R392 and the H616, they >>>> look the same: >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara >>> >>> Why do you review your own patches? Does it mean that you contribute >>> code which you did not review before? >> >> I just merely sent the code on behalf of James, because he had trouble >> with the email setup (Protonmail has no SMTP), but didn't want to delay >> the post any longer. > > OK, thanks, I suggest using b4 relay in the future. > >> >>> This is odd process. >> >> I agree, I would have liked it more if James would have sent it himself, >> and then my review would look more natural, but with my review I >> wanted to explicitly point out the technical correctness. Besides: I found >> this ordering issue in the other patch only after sending, so needed to >> somehow respond anyway. >> Also I wanted to make the process transparent: someone posts a patch (in >> this case via a proxy), then it gets reviewed. >> >>> Your Review is implied by sending the patch. >> >> Is that really true? I was under the impression that sending is > > For authorship, both tested and review are implied. You cannot send code > which you do not think is correct, therefore your authorship fulfills > entire Reviewer's statement of oversight. There is nothing new said in > statement of oversight comparing to what authorship says. > > Now for testing, I think it is also kind of obvious that whenever we can > test our own code, we test it. > > For sending other people patches, we could disagree. I stand that I > would not ever send incorrect patch intentionally. Therefore reviewer's > statement of oversight is entirely redundant as well. I just cannot send > someone's patch without reviewing, thus without adhering to points > expressed by statement of oversight. > >> independent from review. I mean I doubt that every maintainer sending >> patches up the chain (when they add their SoB) implies a *review*? Surely > > Yes, every. This applies to mass-maintainers, like netdev, Greg, Andrew etc. > > Every patch I apply to my subsystems is reviewed by me. I cannot do > else, because that is the requirement of maintainership. > > There are however maintainers (see i2c patches or Intel DRM) who accept > patches and do not review them. When they review, they provide > additional Rb tag + Sob. This is weird because it means when they accept > patch, they take it unreviewed! Their SoB does not imply reviewing patch > and this is in contrast to kernel process. Above is my quote and I understood that my sentence is misleading. I wanted to say that such maintainers, when accepting code reviewed by other maintainer, do not perform their own review. They just blindly take it. That would be the meaning for me, that in other cases they add explicit Review-tag. If they add it explicit, then when it is missing it means "No review". And this is odd. > > BTW, Stephen Rothwell mentions this to every maintainer on adding their > tree to linux-next ("You will need to ensure that ... reviewed by you > (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree)"). > > >> they do agree on the patch (also typically expressed by an Ack), otherwise >> they wouldn't send it, but a "review" is still a different thing. > > IMO, this would mean such maintainers accept code which they do not > understand/review/care. They are just patch juggling monkeys who take > something and push it further without doing actual work. > > That's not how maintainership should look like. Maintainer must take > reviewed code and, if other maintainers do not review, then they must > perform it. > >> The Linux history has both Rb + SoB from the same person and just SoB >> signatures, so I assume that it's not implied. > > It depends on people. As I said, I2C and DRM provide Review tag. For me > this is silly and suggest that all my work, that 1000 patches I took, > was not reviewed. Also, quoting maintainer's handbook in Linux kernel: "Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their drivers, no matter how trivial." This cannot be written simpler. Every patch maintainer accepts, which is not reviewed by co-maintainers or other maintainers, must be reviewed by him, thus Review is implied by his SoB and commit. > >> >>> And you have there SoB which indicates you sent it... >> >> Yes, but SoB just means I sign off on the legal aspects: that I got the >> patches legally, compliant with the GPL, and that I am fine with and >> allowed to release them under GPL conditions. >> That does not include any code review aspect, AFAICT. > > So you want to say, that you are fine in sending intentionally buggy > code, knowingly incorrect, because your SoB and your "git send-email" > does not mean you reviewed it? > Best regards, Krzysztof