Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     sandberg@mailfence.com, bgolaszewski@baylibre.com,
        geert+renesas@glider.be, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        drew@beagleboard.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
References: <20210325122832.119147-1-sandberg@mailfence.com>
 <20210530161333.3996-1-maukka@ext.kapsi.fi>
 <20210530161333.3996-3-maukka@ext.kapsi.fi>
 <CAHp75Vffj=8WKBO23iRxxFmva+SU5u58eBkZfMRyY6GG-6maXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0307426d-83a3-8c45-e1a6-ffc422780cbb@ext.kapsi.fi>
 <CAHp75VfkyV+2p50c=iK5n4uiv6ptypsqc-GkWi7ZJHTs7Qmr3g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Mauri Sandberg <maukka@ext.kapsi.fi>
Message-ID: <a8301a34-5ce6-6bce-63c9-3a4484a8b20d@ext.kapsi.fi>
Date:   Mon, 31 May 2021 13:19:51 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VfkyV+2p50c=iK5n4uiv6ptypsqc-GkWi7ZJHTs7Qmr3g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] gpio: gpio-mux-input: add generic gpio input
 multiplexer
Precedence: bulk


On 30.5.2021 22.38, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 10:02 PM Mauri Sandberg <maukka@ext.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>> On 30.5.2021 21.09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 7:16 PM Mauri Sandberg <maukka@ext.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>>> Is it a fix? Shall we add the Fixes tag?
>> In the v1 a build bot complained about .owner along these lines:
>>
>> --- snip ----
>> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>>
>>
>> cocci warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>>   >> drivers/gpio/gpio-mux-input.c:138:3-8: No need to set .owner here.
>> The core will do it.
>>
>> Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.
>> --- snip ---
>>
>> I removed the .owner attribute in v2 as requested but wasn't really sure
>> whether it was "appropriate"
>> to add the tag so I put it there anyhow. Technically, this does not fix
>> any previous commit.
> For this kind of thing you may attribute the reporter(s) by mentioning
> them in the comment lines / cover letter.
It's there in the patch version notes so the 'Reported-by' was 
unnecessary. Should it be removed?
That is, is there a tool sitting somwhere that tries to match reports 
and their fixes?