Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: pass directly chip structure to mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal

From: "Alexis Lothoré" <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	"Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"Vladimir Oltean" <olteanv@gmail.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"Richard Cochran" <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	paul.arola@telus.com, scott.roberts@telus.com,
	"Marek Behún" <kabel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: pass directly chip structure to mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 16:46:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9a7fac7b-e04b-27e2-8679-ffbbb23c248e@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZG4OuWllZp3MZxO8@shell.armlinux.org.uk>

Hello Russell,

On 5/24/23 15:18, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 03:01:22PM +0200, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
>> Since this function is a simple helper, we do not need to pass a full
>> dsa_switch structure, we can directly pass the mv88e6xxx_chip structure.
>> Doing so will allow to share this function with any other function
>> not manipulating dsa_switch structure but needing info about number of
>> internal phys
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
>> Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>>
>> ---
>> Changes since v2:
>> - add reviewed-by tags
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
>> ---
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me the way human beings can find creative ways
> to mess things up, no matter how well things are documented. The above
> commit message (and the others that I've looked at) are all broken
> because of this creativity.
> 
> In effect, because of the really weird format you've come up with here,
> your patches are in effect *not* signed off by you.

Sorry for that. This was an attempt to provide relevant changelog for each
patch, but obviously the way I stored those changelogs was wrong, and I did not
catch the consequent broken Signed-off-by lines after re-generating the series.
I'll do as suggested and hold off a bit before fixing/re-sending.

Kind regards,
> 
> The patch format is in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> under the section marked "The canonical patch format". Please review.
> 
> Please wait a while (a few days) to see if anyone responds to _this_
> posting with any other comments. Thanks.
> 

-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com