| Message ID | 20240422164511.2488261-2-andre.przywara@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm64: dts: allwinner: H616: Add LRADC | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | success | |
| robh/patch-applied | success | |
| robh/dtbs-check | warning | build log |
| robh/dt-meta-schema | success |
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:45:10 +0100 Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: Hi, > From: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> > > The Allwinner H616 SoC has an LRADC which is compatible with the > versions in existing SoCs. > Add a compatible string for H616, with the R329 fallback. This is the > same as the D1, so put them into an enum. > > Signed-off-by: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Compared the descriptions in the manual between the R392 and the H616, they look the same: Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Cheers, Andre > --- > .../bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml > index c384bf0bb25d..8cb5820774e0 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml > @@ -22,7 +22,9 @@ properties: > - const: allwinner,sun8i-a83t-r-lradc > - const: allwinner,sun50i-r329-lradc > - items: > - - const: allwinner,sun20i-d1-lradc > + - enum: > + - allwinner,sun50i-h616-lradc > + - allwinner,sun20i-d1-lradc > - const: allwinner,sun50i-r329-lradc > > reg:
On 23/04/2024 12:15, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:45:10 +0100 > Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > >> From: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> >> >> The Allwinner H616 SoC has an LRADC which is compatible with the >> versions in existing SoCs. >> Add a compatible string for H616, with the R329 fallback. This is the >> same as the D1, so put them into an enum. >> >> Signed-off-by: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > > Compared the descriptions in the manual between the R392 and the H616, they > look the same: > > Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Why do you review your own patches? Does it mean that you contribute code which you did not review before? This is odd process. Your Review is implied by sending the patch. And you have there SoB which indicates you sent it... Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:18:23 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: Hi, > On 23/04/2024 12:15, Andre Przywara wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:45:10 +0100 > > Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >> From: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> > >> > >> The Allwinner H616 SoC has an LRADC which is compatible with the > >> versions in existing SoCs. > >> Add a compatible string for H616, with the R329 fallback. This is the > >> same as the D1, so put them into an enum. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > > > > Compared the descriptions in the manual between the R392 and the H616, they > > look the same: > > > > Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > > 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. > 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 independent from review. I mean I doubt that every maintainer sending patches up the chain (when they add their SoB) implies a *review*? Surely 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. The Linux history has both Rb + SoB from the same person and just SoB signatures, so I assume that it's not implied. > 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. Happy to hear other opinions, but this is my interpretation. Cheers, Andre
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:45:10 +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > From: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> > > The Allwinner H616 SoC has an LRADC which is compatible with the > versions in existing SoCs. > Add a compatible string for H616, with the R329 fallback. This is the > same as the D1, so put them into an enum. > > Signed-off-by: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > --- > .../bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org> While the Reviewed-by from Andre was a bit unusual, the explanation makes sense. Also note that b4 can proxy send patches for people with broken (or non-existent) SMTP servers. Rob
On 23/04/2024 14:51, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:18:23 +0200 > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, > >> On 23/04/2024 12:15, Andre Przywara wrote: >>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:45:10 +0100 >>> Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> From: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> >>>> >>>> The Allwinner H616 SoC has an LRADC which is compatible with the >>>> versions in existing SoCs. >>>> Add a compatible string for H616, with the R329 fallback. This is the >>>> same as the D1, so put them into an enum. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> >>> >>> Compared the descriptions in the manual between the R392 and the H616, they >>> look the same: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> >> >> 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. 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. > >> 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
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 <andre.przywara@arm.com> >>> >>> 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
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 16:59:31 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: Hi, > On 23/04/2024 14:51, Andre Przywara wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:18:23 +0200 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >> On 23/04/2024 12:15, Andre Przywara wrote: > >>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:45:10 +0100 > >>> Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>>> From: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> > >>>> > >>>> The Allwinner H616 SoC has an LRADC which is compatible with the > >>>> versions in existing SoCs. > >>>> Add a compatible string for H616, with the R329 fallback. This is the > >>>> same as the D1, so put them into an enum. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: James McGregor <jamcgregor@protonmail.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > >>> > >>> Compared the descriptions in the manual between the R392 and the H616, they > >>> look the same: > >>> > >>> Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > >> > >> 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. Sure, will relay that - though this is not trivial to setup either. > >> 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. Fair enough, and James did, but I am not the author, as shown by the explicit From: line, having a different name. I *did* have a look over the patch before sending it, running checkpatch etc. But I cannot find anything in submitting-patches.rst that would constitute that Signed-off-by: includes any kind of technical review, it just seems to cover the legal aspects of patch deliverance? And personally for me a *review* means a thorough look at the code, understanding what it does and how it does it, and checking various details, for instance by looking into a datasheet. This is what I did only later, hence the separate review mail. > Now for testing, I think it is also kind of obvious that whenever we can > test our own code, we test it. Granted. I do not have hardware to test, but I ran DT schema checks before sending, I guess this qualifies as "testing" to some degree. > For sending other people patches, we could disagree. I stand that I > would not ever send incorrect patch intentionally. Sure, and the patch was not incorrect, I trust James that far, because I know him and talked to him about this patch and the process before. > Therefore reviewer's statement of oversight is entirely redundant as well. Maybe I missed that, but I don't see anything in the documentation that would support this statement. The "reviewer's statement of oversight" is only expressed by an explicit Reviewed-by: tag, it seems, and none of the other tags seem to include that. I would agree that authorship does, somewhat naturally, but I don't see that sending or SoB does. > I just cannot send > someone's patch without reviewing, thus without adhering to points > expressed by statement of oversight. As you mention elsewhere, this seems to be individual. I personally feel that this assumed "implicit review", given through the SoB tag or through sending, is weaker than an explicit Rb tag. I agree that by sending a patch from someone else I take some kind of responsibility for the patch, but in this case I wanted to express that I did a proper review of the patch, going beyond the usual process checks. Hence the reply with the R-b tag. > > 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. I don't see it that way, I guess many maintainers rely on (thorough) reviews from third parties, and just glance over each patch before sending? Doesn't mean that they can and do reviews, but I feel it's not a requirement to do so *yourself* for *every* patch? > 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. > > 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)"). But this hints that there must be *some* review taking place, and it's the maintainer's responsibility to ensure this. But that doesn't mean that the maintainer cannot delegate? And then they would just forward patches reviewed by trusted people. > > 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. Of course, but I feel this discussion goes into a different direction. I am not a maintainer for the sunxi tree, I am a mere messenger here, forwarding a patch. And I didn't think this implies an implicit review. A did an explicit one, to stress that I did look into the patch more thoroughly, and also because we are not exactly drowning in reviewers ;-) > > 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. If you forward a thousand patches, I wouldn't expect you did review all of them *yourself*. This would be an almost impossible task, unless "review" just means something like: "uses tabs for indentation". > >> 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? Where did I claim that? Of course I would not send intentionally buggy code, and of course I did some high level checking of the patch before I attached my name to it. But to me this is still different from a proper "review", hence my reply. Cheers, Andre > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >
On 24/04/2024 12:55, Andre Przywara wrote: > >> For sending other people patches, we could disagree. I stand that I >> would not ever send incorrect patch intentionally. > > Sure, and the patch was not incorrect, I trust James that far, because I > know him and talked to him about this patch and the process before. > >> Therefore reviewer's statement of oversight is entirely redundant as well. > > Maybe I missed that, but I don't see anything in the documentation that > would support this statement. The "reviewer's statement of oversight" > is only expressed by an explicit Reviewed-by: tag, it seems, and none of > the other tags seem to include that. I would agree that authorship does, > somewhat naturally, but I don't see that sending or SoB does. If you send someone's patch, the patch must be correct to your best knowledge. Therefore Reviewer's statement of oversight does not cover anything more. Otherwise such submitter of someone's patches must not be trusted. > >> I just cannot send >> someone's patch without reviewing, thus without adhering to points >> expressed by statement of oversight. > > As you mention elsewhere, this seems to be individual. > I personally feel that this assumed "implicit review", given through > the SoB tag or through sending, is weaker than an explicit Rb tag. I agree > that by sending a patch from someone else I take some kind of > responsibility for the patch, but in this case I wanted to express You take full responsibility, not some. > that I did a proper review of the patch, going beyond the usual process > checks. Hence the reply with the R-b tag. > >>> 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. > > I don't see it that way, I guess many maintainers rely on (thorough) > reviews from third parties, and just glance over each patch before I also rely on reviews on other parties, but that does not mean I do not perform review. > sending? Doesn't mean that they can and do reviews, but I feel it's not a > requirement to do so *yourself* for *every* patch? Reviews are different. If someone trusted performs review, I can relax and spend less time on it making less thorough review. It's still a review. > >> 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. >> >> 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)"). > > But this hints that there must be *some* review taking place, and it's the > maintainer's responsibility to ensure this. But that doesn't mean that the > maintainer cannot delegate? And then they would just forward patches > reviewed by trusted people. Yes, then can delegate to other maintainer, not to random person. > >>> 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. > > Of course, but I feel this discussion goes into a different direction. I am > not a maintainer for the sunxi tree, I am a mere messenger here, > forwarding a patch. And I didn't think this implies an implicit review. > A did an explicit one, to stress that I did look into the patch more > thoroughly, and also because we are not exactly drowning in reviewers ;-) > >>> 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. > > If you forward a thousand patches, I wouldn't expect you did review all of > them *yourself*. This would be an almost impossible task, unless "review" > just means something like: "uses tabs for indentation". Obviously if someone forwards 1000 patches the review is much shallower, less careful. To which extend? It's individual. Now go to several patches for netdev and USB, from less trusted sources, which did not receive other reviews and look for answers. You might see really diligent review. > >>>> 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? > > Where did I claim that? Of course I would not send intentionally buggy > code, and of course I did some high level checking of the patch before I > attached my name to it. But to me this is still different from a proper > "review", hence my reply. You did not say that. I am here merely twisting the concept to border case to show the point. If you send someone's patch and add Review tag, what does it mean? That you reviewed this code, so to your best knowledge it is good. If you send someone's patch and did not add Review tag, what does it mean? That you did not reviewed this code? So whatever is in the code is okay? How such case should be understood. If we take such approach, we must never trust submitters of someone's else patches, unless they provide review tag. Without review tag, that person does not take responsibility of that patch. And that's just not the process which is in practice. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml index c384bf0bb25d..8cb5820774e0 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/allwinner,sun4i-a10-lradc-keys.yaml @@ -22,7 +22,9 @@ properties: - const: allwinner,sun8i-a83t-r-lradc - const: allwinner,sun50i-r329-lradc - items: - - const: allwinner,sun20i-d1-lradc + - enum: + - allwinner,sun50i-h616-lradc + - allwinner,sun20i-d1-lradc - const: allwinner,sun50i-r329-lradc reg: