Re: [PATCH v7 05/11] dt-bindings: pwm: add microchip corepwm binding

From: <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
Cc: <a.zummo@towertech.it>, <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	<aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, <atishp@rivosinc.com>, <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	<conor.dooley@microchip.com>, <daire.mcnamara@microchip.com>,
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	<ivan.griffin@microchip.com>, <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
	<lee.jones@linaro.org>, <lewis.hanly@microchip.com>,
	<linus.walleij@linaro.org>, <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>,
	<palmer@dabbelt.com>, <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
	<paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	<robh@kernel.org>, <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/11] dt-bindings: pwm: add microchip corepwm binding
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:55:10 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220223085509.3664942-1-conor.dooley@microchip.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220223082018.degrftmxpk5uc6xn@pengutronix.de>

On 23/02/2022 08:20, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 08:12:49AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 23/02/2022 07:20, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:58:35PM +0000, conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> > >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > >>
> > >> Add device tree bindings for the Microchip fpga fabric based "core" PWM
> > >> controller.
> > >>
> > >> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > >> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> > > 
> > > I like it:
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > > 
> > > nitpick: Put your S-o-b last in the commit log. (This doesn't justify a
> > > resend IMHO)
> > 
> > It should be the opposite - the first. First author signs the patch,
> > then comes review and finally an ack. Putting SoB at then suggests that
> > tags were accumulated before sending patch, out of mailing list.
> 
> well, or in an earlier revision of this patch as is the case here. One
> of the ideas of S-o-b is that the order shows the flow of the patch
> states and if this patch ends in git with:
> 
> 	Referred-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> 	Singed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 	Backed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> 	Singed-off-by: Peter Maintainer <pm@example.com>
> 
> I'd expect that Backed-by was added by Peter, not Conor.
> (Modified the tags on purpose to not interfere with b4's tag pickup, I
> guess you humans still get the point.)

I had put the acks after the S-o-B for patches I hadn't changed since the ack,
but I think that may have been a misinterpretation of what was meant by Rob
when he said tags should be in chronological order. Won't do it this way in
the future.

If the remaining patch gets a maintainer ack, the order will be fine I guess
since it'll be Palmer taking it anyway. If there's a v8, I will fix the order.

Thanks,
Conor