Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] nfc: s3fwrn5: support the S3NRN4V variant

[Jorijn van der Graaf]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 01:18:33PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote:
> > Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4-8
> > Assisted-by: Claude:claude-fable-5
> > Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-5
>
> Here's my mental model:
>
>   - It's good to know that you used an LLM (hence Assisted-by).
>   - Someone may want to reproduce some generated code, so knowing which model was
>     used is useful.
>   - When you put THREE ;-) models there, I think it's getting a bit useless, as
>     we don't know which part was generated or adjusted by which model. At this
>     point, it feels somewhat pointless.

coding-assistants.rst doesn't say what to do when multiple models are
used, and generated-content.rst says to choose transparency when in
doubt, so I kept the tags each patch had accumulated.

Currently I use claude-fable-5 as my coding assistant and
claude-opus-5 only reviews. Earlier I used the opus models for this
as well. Each tag was added when a model wrote code on a patch, then
deliberately carried forward across revisions.

> My recommendation would be to keep just one line for the model used for:
>
> a) the majority of the changes
> b) the last model used (at least for notable changes)
> c) the most powerful model doing the generation and/or review
>
> I personally don't mind either approach. There have been discussions about
> dropping Assisted-by completely, but so far it makes sense to me to keep it,
> just in moderation.

Agreed that three lines are ambiguous. Future patches will carry a
single Assisted-by line for the model actually being used as the
coding assistant, or just "Assisted-by: LLM" if the simplification
now in the docs tree lands [1]. The opus tags can be dropped from this series.

Thanks,
Jorijn

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/87qzkuahlr.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/