Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-98054-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240308172726.225357-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <20240308172726.225357-2-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> <aee88f81-0b8a-4f57-9dab-b4d13db47abe@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <aee88f81-0b8a-4f57-9dab-b4d13db47abe@linaro.org>
From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 23:05:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+V-a8s9OaZ7_RXGjkZYpNS7879ku-aXJ+AvsfgvuTZshyWd5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: i2c: renesas,riic: Update comment for
 fallback string
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>, Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com>, 
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>, 
	linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@renesas.com>, 
	Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Krzysztof,

Thank you for the review.

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 11:58=E2=80=AFAM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 08/03/2024 18:27, Prabhakar wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> >
> > With the fallback string being utilized by multiple other SoCs, this
> > patch updates the comment for the generic compatible string.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@renesas.com>
>
> Really, you review a comment change? Internally?
>
> Is this some sort of company policy? Are these even true reviews?
>
Yes this patch was reviewed internally and it's "real". Unfortunately
I cannot share the repo externally where this review was done but I
can assure it was reviewed. As this is not a single patch all the
patches in this series were internally reviewed. Is it bad to review a
comment change?
BTW what makes you think I have added fake review tags?

Is there any guideline you can point me to that states what needs to
be done when the code has been internally reviewed please. I'll make
sure I'll follow it.

> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml b/=
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml
> > index 2291a7cd619b..63ac5fe3208d 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml
> > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ properties:
> >            - renesas,riic-r9a07g043  # RZ/G2UL and RZ/Five
> >            - renesas,riic-r9a07g044  # RZ/G2{L,LC}
> >            - renesas,riic-r9a07g054  # RZ/V2L
> > -      - const: renesas,riic-rz      # RZ/A or RZ/G2L
> > +      - const: renesas,riic-rz      # generic RIIC compatible
>
> Just drop the comment instead.
>
Ok, I will drop it.

Cheers,
Prabhakar