Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 27 May 2019 11:28:02 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To:     Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>
Cc:     Jeff Kletsky <lede@allycomm.com>,
        "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mtd: spinand: Add support for GigaDevice
 GD5F1GQ4UFxxG
Message-ID: <20190527112802.08b86fa5@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <34004a59-5643-e405-13ca-3581659fc745@kontron.de>
References: <20190522220555.11626-1-lede@allycomm.com>
        <20190522220555.11626-4-lede@allycomm.com>
        <e438022f-3444-9aae-adac-2dd3dd0071b7@kontron.de>
        <e0682730-b69d-d774-d98f-53858e390d8b@allycomm.com>
        <34004a59-5643-e405-13ca-3581659fc745@kontron.de>
Organization: Bootlin
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Schrempf,

Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de> wrote on Mon, 27 May
2019 06:35:59 +0000:

> Hi Jeff,
> 
> On 24.05.19 02:12, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> > (reduced direct addressees, though still on lists)
> > 
> > On 5/22/19 11:42 PM, Schrempf Frieder wrote:
> >   
> >> On 23.05.19 00:05, Jeff Kletsky wrote:  
> >>> From: Jeff Kletsky <git-commits@allycomm.com>
> >>>
> >>> The GigaDevice GD5F1GQ4UFxxG SPI NAND is in current production devices
> >>> and, while it has the same logical layout as the E-series devices,
> >>> it differs in the SPI interfacing in significant ways.
> >>>
> >>> This support is contingent on previous commits to:
> >>>
> >>>     * Add support for two-byte device IDs
> >>>     * Define macros for page-read ops with three-byte addresses
> >>>
> >>> http://www.gigadevice.com/datasheet/gd5f1gq4xfxxg/
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kletsky <git-commits@allycomm.com>  
> >> Reviewed-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>
> >>  
> >>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>  
> >> I dont't think that this Reported-by tag should be used here. The bot
> >> reported build errors caused by your patch and you fixed it in a new
> >> version. As far as I understand this tag, it references someone who
> >> reported a flaw/bug that led to this change in the first place.
> >> The version history of the changes won't be visible in the git history
> >> later, but the tag will be and would be rather confusing.  
> > 
> > Thank you for your patience and explanations. I've been being conservative
> > as I'm not a "seasoned, Linux professional" and am still getting my
> > git send-email config / command line for Linux properly straightened out.  
> 
> Being conservative in such cases is not a fault at all. I'm not an 
> expert either. I'm just recommending what I think might be the "correct" 
> way to do it.
> 
> > Should I send another patch set with the `kbuild...` tag removed,
> > or would it be removed in the process of an appropriate member
> > of the Linux MTD team adding their tag for approval, if and when
> > that happens?  
> 
> I don't think that's necessary. Miquèl is the one to pick up the patch, 
> so he could probably drop the "Reported-by: kbuild" when he applies it.

I will drop it.

Also, please do not add an empty line between tags, they should be a
single block. I will also modify your commits for this time.

Thanks,
Miquèl