Re: [PATCH 01/17] dt-bindings: power: apple,pmgr-pwrstate: Add t8112 compatible
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <hidden>
Date: 2023-02-14 09:40:03
Also in:
asahi, linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On 14/02/2023 09:43, Hector Martin wrote:
On 14/02/2023 16.50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:quoted
On 14/02/2023 03:24, Hector Martin wrote:quoted
On 13/02/2023 20.09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:quoted
On 12/02/2023 16:41, Janne Grunau wrote:quoted
From: Hector Martin <redacted> Add the apple,t8112-pmgr-pwrstate compatible for the Apple M2 SoC. This goes after t8103. The sort order logic here is having SoC numeric code families in release order, and SoCs within each family in release order: - t8xxx (Apple HxxP/G series, "phone"/"tablet" chips) - t8103 (Apple H13G/M1) - t8112 (Apple H14G/M2) - t6xxx (Apple HxxJ series, "desktop" chips) - t6000 (Apple H13J(S)/M1 Pro) - t6001 (Apple H13J(C)/M1 Max) - t6002 (Apple H13J(D)/M1 Ultra) Note that t600[0-2] share the t6000 compatible where the hardware is 100% compatible, which is usually the case in this highly related set of SoCs. Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <redacted>Missing SoB.I'd rather get an r-b, since this is going back into my tree ;)Please follow Linux process which requires SoB chain.A SoB is not an r-b. I do not upstream patches that are unreviewed. I wrote the patch. Someone needs to review it. The extra SoB is redundant because this is going back into my tree, I wrote it, and I will be the committer when I apply it. It's a one-liner patch. I know what I wrote. Sure we could record Janne's SoB as a technicality, but it feels silly. What matters more is that the patch gets reviewed, not that on a patch series technicality it ended up being Janne who sent it to the list. I could just pull the patch from my own branch and then it didn't go through Janne so it doesn't need his SoB. But it does need someone's review (because I absolutely refuse to merge my own patches without review, although not every maintainer has that policy unfortunately, which means there's lots of unreviewed code in the kernel). Please. Let's cut down on the silliness. Please. We're trying to get stuff done here. I'm tired of having to explain every little thing over and over and over again. I really am.
Listen, I have no clue whether Janne changed the patch or not. She might have rebased it or not. The chain expects that anyone touching the patch must leave SoB. I am not providing my reviewes for patches breaking the process we have clearly described. I also do not see any problem in following the process we have - adding SoB whenever you play with a patch and send it. Entire discussion is silly indeed, instead of just following the process. Best regards, Krzysztof