Re: [PATCH v19 03/10] video: backlight: Add of_find_backlight helper in backlight.c

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/26/2018 01:48 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, Meghana Madhyastha wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Add of_find_backlight, a helper function which is a generic version
> >> >> of tinydrm_of_find_backlight that can be used by other drivers to avoid
> >> >> repetition of code and simplify things.
> >> >>
> >> >> Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> Reviewed-by: Noralf TrÃnnes <noralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> Reviewed-by: Sean Paul<seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Meghana Madhyastha <meghana.madhyastha@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > Nit: These should be in chronological order.
> >>
> >> Where does that tidbit of information come from?
> >> I have never heard or read that.
> >
> > Not sure it is documented anywhere.  It appeared to be the widely
> > used, most sensible approach, so I adopted it a few years ago.
> >
> > This method provides us with information which would otherwise be
> > absent; including description of the patch submission/acceptance path
> > and an idea of who did what, when.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > Original Author sign-off
> > Original Co-author sign-off
> > [Additional contributions: rebase, API changes, fix-ups]
> > Re-worker's sign-off
> > Tester's tested-by
> > Reviewer's acked-by/reviewed-by
> > Level-2 Maintainer sign-off
> > Level-1 Maintainer sign-off
> >
> > Are you aware of a more functional/practical/useful method?
> 
> Our tooling adds a Link: tag to the commit message pointing back to
> mailing list archives. This provides more detailed patch provenance in

I've been avoiding using tooling for Maintainership for a long time.
I really do not want to go via that route.  The simpler the better as
far as I'm concerned (KISS [no, I'm not coming on to you!]).

Also, a ML link only provides you with information on the final
iteration of the submitted patch, and still does not provide
information on who did what, when.

> addition to reducing the burden on contributors to order tags

It's not really much of a burden.  Just keep putting the tags at the
bottom when you collect them.  Fortunately this is most developer's
default pattern, so I do not have to bring this up much.

> correctly (I had never heard of this as a requirement either). Check
> out [1]  if you're interested.
> 
> Sean
> 
> [1]- https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html
> 
> >

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog