Re: [PATCH v2 13/28] drivers: Introduce class_find_device_by_of_node() helper

[Peter Rosin]

On 2019-06-24 10:34, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 22/06/2019 06:25, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2019-06-14 19:54, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> Add a wrapper to class_find_device() to search for a device
>>> by the of_node pointer, reusing the generic match function.
>>> Also convert the existing users to make use of the new helper.
>>>
>>> Cc: Alan Tull <atull@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Moritz Fischer <mdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: linux-fpga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Whoooa! I reviewed only the drivers/mux/core.c changes when this was done
>> in a series of much smaller patches. This tag makes it seem as if I have
>> reviewed the whole thing, which I had not done when you added this tag out
>> of the blue.
> 
> Apologies for the surprise. The patch was simply squashed with the change that
> introduced the "helper" to better aid the reviewers, based on suggestions on the
> list. I kept your tags, only because there were no changes, but some additional
> context on the core driver.

You could e.g. have written:

	...
	[For the drivers/mux/core.c part]
	Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
	...

>>
>> Now, this stuff is trivial and by now I have looked at the other files
>> and it all seems simple enough. So, you can keep the tag, but it is NOT
>> ok to handle tags like you have done here.
> 
> Sure, I will keep that in mind.

Great!

Cheers,
Peter