Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220510154406.v5.1.Id769ddc5dbf570ccb511db96da59f97d08f75a9c@changeid>
In-Reply-To: <20220510154406.v5.1.Id769ddc5dbf570ccb511db96da59f97d08f75a9c@changeid>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 15:19:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Vkiqxv5QRiEqCjZVSNUH=K1N+JuYEsXu=XtFNxRtvttw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: Add wormdingler dts files
To:     "Joseph S. Barrera III" <joebar@chromium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexandru M Stan <amstan@chromium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 3:46 PM Joseph S. Barrera III
<joebar@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Wormdingler is a trogdor-based board, shipping to customers as the
> Lenovo IdeaPad Chromebook Duet 3. These dts files are copies from
> the downstream Chrome OS 5.4 kernel, but with the camera
> (sc7180-trogdor-mipi-camera.dtsi) #include removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joseph S. Barrera III <joebar@chromium.org>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v5:
> - Replaced _ in node name with -
> - Ordered nodes by name

So it's a bit of a judgement call, but generally the rule is that if
you didn't make very big changes from one version of a patch to the
next that you should keep "Reviewed-by" tags that you've already
received. In this case the changes you made from v4 to v5 were very
small and also very non-controversial (it's hard to believe I would
object to these changes). Thus, it would have been better to keep my
Reviewed-by tag. Everyone understands that it's a judgement call so as
long as it's within reason people won't be too upset at you for making
your best guess. If you're unsure, you can always add a note "after
the cut" (AKA "Commit-notes" in patman speak) explaining why you did
or didn't choose to keep someone's tags.

That being said, offline Stephen pointed out a problem with all of
your v5 patches. Specifically, in the meantime while you were spinning
your patches, Stephen's patch series landed in the upstream tree.
Namely:

19794489fa24 arm64: dts: qcom: Only include sc7180.dtsi in sc7180-trogdor.dtsi
d277cab7afc7 arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180-trogdor: Simplify spi0/spi6 labeling
51d30402be75 arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180-trogdor: Simplify trackpad enabling

Since he won the race of getting the patches landed, that means it's
on you to adjust. You should modify your patches to match what Stephen
did in those 3. ...and, presumably, the changes Stephen is requesting
here probably _are_ big enough that you'd want to remove my
Reviewed-by tag for v6.

Speaking of Stephen, he reviewed your v4 patches, but you didn't copy
him on v5. In general if someone responds to a patch in the series you
should CC them on the next version.

-Doug