Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230201-innolux-g070ace-v2-0-2371e251dd40@skidata.com>
 <20230201-innolux-g070ace-v2-1-2371e251dd40@skidata.com> <CAD=FV=XJCtqep+92h3gLfs4o2TwvL4MORjc9ydTSpZiZ0dsR0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <fb93e95f-181f-917d-9216-a81dec1a2959@linaro.org> <CAD=FV=Vs8UEfBZ56fYb3i1cmFbCSPrbgaedXB4+UvDTOyhzCzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <184f0a80-34bc-5ebf-58bb-82a310eb91f6@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <184f0a80-34bc-5ebf-58bb-82a310eb91f6@linaro.org>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 09:51:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WLHpddAMo7GQwj98TtDn0xw6UzgYUKyVhSDZw1acKpCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/2] dt-bindings: display: simple: add support
 for InnoLux G070ACE-L01
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     richard.leitner@linux.dev,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:45=E2=80=AFAM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 21/04/2023 18:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:26=E2=80=AFAM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51=E2=80=AFAM <richard.leitner@linux.dev> =
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
> >>>> string.
> >>>>
> >>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> >>>
> >>> nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
> >>> chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it=
,
> >>> so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.
> >>
> >> Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the
> >> tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We shoul=
d
> >> not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct =
-
> >> then fix the tools.
> >
> > Ah, interesting. I checked and as far as I could tell Richard had
> > manually added the tag when sending v2, so I didn't assume it as a
> > tool-added tag. I'm happy to let "b4" be the canonical thing that says
> > what the order should be.
> >
> > OK, so I just tried this and I'm confused. I ran:
> >
> > b4 am -P_ 20230201-innolux-g070ace-v2-2-2371e251dd40@skidata.com
> >
> > ...and when I check the patch that b4 spits out my "Reviewed-by" tag
> > is _after_ the "Signed-off-by" tag, just like I asked for.
> >
> > Just in case Acked-by was somehow different than Reviewed-by, I went
> > back to the original version where you added the Acked-by:
> >
> >  b4 am -P_ 20221118075856.401373-1-richard.leitner@linux.dev
> >
> > ...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
> > words, the patch file generated says:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> >> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>
> We talk about `b4 trailers`, because the tag is applied by the
> submitter, not by the maintainer.
>
> >
> > Did I get something wrong in the above?
>
> Your `b4 am` will of course put the tag later, because it is you who
> applies the tag.

Ah, got it. So I guess from the perspective of "b4" every time the
author modifies a patch (like adding new tags to it) then it's a new
application of Signed-off-by and thus the old Signed-off-by is removed
from the top and a new one is added below all the tags that have been
received. Thus if b4 grabs all the tags off the mailing list for
applying it ends up in a different order than if it grabs all the tags
off the mailing list for sending a new version.

OK, I can understand that perspective. I'll keep it in mind.

-Doug