Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: adc: add support for mcp3911
From: Andy Shevchenko
Date: Sat Aug 04 2018 - 16:56:45 EST
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Marcus Folkesson
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 22:52:00 +0300
>> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Marcus Folkesson
>> > <marcus.folkesson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > MCP3911 is a dual channel Analog Front End (AFE) containing two
>> > > synchronous sampling delta-sigma Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADC).
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Kent Gustavsson <kent@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > What is this? Why it's here (presense and location in the message)?
>> To clarify... If Kent wrote the patch and you are simply acting
>> as gatekeeper / upstreamer you should set the mail to be from Kent
>> and put your own Signed-off after his to basically act as a submaintainer
>> certifying you believe his sign off and all that entails.
Yep. And here the ordering is incorrect, right?
>> If it is a bit of a joint effort then that's fine but for copyright
>> purposes there should be some indication of the split.
> First, thank you Andy for noticing.
> I actually intended to use Co-Developed-by (a pretty new tag)
> in combination with Signed-off-by.
> But the tag must have disappeared in some preparation stage..
> From Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst ::
> A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
> along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people
> work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by:
> line in the patch as well.
> I will switch order and add the Co-Developed-by-tag.
> Is this correct?
> Co-Developed-by: Kent Gustavsson <kent@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kent Gustavsson <kent@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@xxxxxxxxx>
Yep, this looks good!
>> > > + of_property_read_u32(of_node, "device-addr", &adc->dev_addr);
>> > Isn't what we called CS (chip select)?
>> Nope. We went around this in an earlier revision. It's an address transmitted
>> in the control byte to allow you to 'share' a chip select line between multiple
>> chips (crazy but true).
With Best Regards,