Re: [PATCH V9 0/2] media: i2c: Add support for DW9768 VCM

Sakari Ailus
2020-07-30T16:39:54Z

Dongchun,

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 07:06:05PM +0800, Dongchun Zhu wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
>
> Sorry I just sent email using outlook where default format is HTML, now
> I use evolution, one Linux mail client that I used to send upstream
> patch previously.
>
> On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 08:34 +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Dongchun,
> >
> > Please don't send HTML e-mail to Linux kernel related mailing lists.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:48:56AM +0000, Dongchun Zhu (朱东春) wrote:
> > > Hi Sakari,
> > >
> > > Sorry to bother you again, but I am so confused about the questions you raised.
> > > I just synced mainline: 5.8-rc3 tarball from https://www.kernel.org/, on which I ran the git am <patch> command.
> > > The patch-applying process shows no error.
> > > -----------------8<-------------------
> > > [mtk15013@mtkslt307 linux]$git apply --check media-i2c-Add-support-for-DW9768-VCM.patch
> > > [mtk15013@mtkslt307 linux]$git am media-i2c-Add-support-for-DW9768-VCM.patch
> > > Applying: media: dt-bindings: media: i2c: Document DW9768 bindings
> > > Applying: media: i2c: dw9768: Add DW9768 VCM driver
> > > -----------------8<-------------------
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I also compared dongwoon,dw9768.yaml file with other media device dt-bindings(like imx219.yaml and ov8856.yaml).
> > > It seems there are no apparent differences between them.
> > > Especially, the sentence '# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)' shall be common.
> > > I dunno why here dongwoon,dw9768.yaml reports trailing whitespace warnings while ov8856.yaml is silent.
> > >
> > > For the patch failed on MAINTAINERS, I am still curious what's wrong.
> > > In fact, I locally have run parse-maintainers.pl script to check MAINTAINERS file before submitting patch.
> > > The result also reports no errors.
> > > -----------------8<-------------------
> > > [mtk15013@mtkslt307 linux]$perl scripts/parse-maintainers.pl
> > > [mtk15013@mtkslt307 linux]$ls
> > > -----------------8<-------------------
> > >
> > > As to Base64 encoding, I checked each patch file again. They are all encoded in UTF-8.
> > > As https://www.base64encode.org/ says, for an example, '77' in ASCII format would be changed to 'T' in Based64-encoded format.
> > > This means there shall be messy code if we adpoting Based64-encoded format.
> > > But I cannot see garbled messages in the current patches.
> > >
> > > The DW9768 serials-patch is attached.
> > > @Tomasz @Andy @Rob could anyone help try to see whether the patch can be cherry-picked on Linux master branch or not?
> > > Patchwork link:
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11633291/
> >
> > Both of the patches appear to contain only ASCII characters.
> >
> > I did some research on this. It seems that the base64 encoded message body
> > does have carriage returns, in both cases. Git am does not attempt to
> > remove them in that case, but Patchwork does. Hence the files are fine if
> > you download them from Patchwork --- where the mbox files have neither
> > carriage returns nor base64 encoding.
> >
> > What does the file command say about the patch files produced by git
> > format-patch? My guess is that something in between your local computer and
> > LMML (and other mail servers) base64 encodes the message body. But where
> > are the carriage returns added? Nevertheless they seem to be added before
> > the base64 conversion.
> >
>
> Hm... I used the file command to check the diff patch generated from git
> format-patch and that downloaded from Patchwork, they are both ASCII
> text.

That's because Patchwork appears to be removing the carriage returns. git
does not if the content is base64 encoded.

Your e-mail setup simply appears to be broken. I'd suggest trying to send
the patches encoded in base64 as a workaround. git send-email uses
sendemail.transferEncoding configuration option for this.

--
Sakari Ailus