Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pwm: mediatek,mt2712: add compatible for MT7988

Uwe Kleine-König
2024-02-16T13:10:51Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1845 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:05:47AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 18:48, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Rafał,
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >>
> >> MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >
> > please make sure that the email address used for sending the patch
> > matches the Signed-off-by line.
> >
> > (It depends on the pickyness of the relevant maintainer if that is a
> > stopper or not.)
>
> Does not have to... It must match From field which is correct here.

Rafał's Signed-off matches the author, but not the sender. Together with
"the Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the
patch." (from Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst) I'd say it's
reasonable to request that there is a sign-off with the email matching
the sender. In my understanding the Sign-off line by the author isn't
really required because the sender can vouch for the author. Of course
this is a somewhat artificial discussion if the sender is the same
person as the author and only the email addresses differ. So this about
the strictness of the applying maintainer.

FTR:

$ curl -s https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/20240213164633.25447-1-zajec5@gmail.com/raw | grep -E '^(From|Signed-off-by):'
From: =?UTF-8?q?Rafa=C5=82=20Mi=C5=82ecki?= <zajec5@gmail.com>
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>

the first From: is the sender, the second the author.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]