Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-119879-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240325153356.46112-1-l.rubusch@gmail.com> <20240325153356.46112-5-l.rubusch@gmail.com>
 <f74a01bd-46a3-46cd-a47a-fcfccd7e4dc6@linaro.org> <CAFXKEHbJ_5unY24aZeutvM-xrjevQ=z7ngDcgwJR=NXzXONx5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <334970e7-2edd-43c8-9f18-b7b3ec5f4d17@linaro.org> <CAFXKEHaEVwiAW9co0+=kZ5w5a8eWg3QL0dmg38bvrmLdnBEA7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <b13ca51c-db57-4a09-b689-cf27265d348f@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <b13ca51c-db57-4a09-b689-cf27265d348f@linaro.org>
From: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:17:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFXKEHYMiARxrN7=jqnJtEVREseZ-zmZmVeY1uNXZV6viwHbmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: lars@metafoo.de, Michael.Hennerich@analog.com, jic23@kernel.org, 
	robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, 
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eraretuya@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:30=E2=80=AFAM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2024 23:09, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for tags received on =
the
> >>>> version they apply.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm pretty sure we will still see further iterations. So, I apply the
> >>> tags in the next version, already scheduled. Ok?
> >>>
> >>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5-rc3/source/Documentation/proce=
ss/submitting-patches.rst#L577
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Going over the books I feel it does not make sense to still mention
> >>> feedback ("Reveiewed-by") for the v1 or v2 of the patch here in a v5,
> >>> does it? Your link mentiones "However if the patch has changed
> >>
> >> I don't understand. When did you receive the tag? v3, right? So what d=
o
> >> you mean by v1 and v2?
> >>
> >
> > V1: The first version of the 3wire patch. I have split the single
> > patch upon some feedback (yours?!) - V2... So, my current
> > interpretation is, that every feedback I need to mention as
> > Reviewed-by tag, no?
>
> What? Feedback is not review. It's clearly explained in submitting
> patches. Please read it.
>

Exactly. My missunderstanding here is this:  Why did you send me a
reminder that I forgot to add "Reviewed-by" tag in your last mail?
Could you please clarify your last mail? You wrote:
"(...)
This is a friendly reminder during the review process.

It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.

If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new
versions, (...)"

AFAIK noone literally had told me: "please add a Reviewed-by me tag",
or did I miss something? I'm a bit lost here, sorry.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>