Re: [PATCH v2] usb: typec: fsa4480: Check if the chip is really there

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 03:52:22PM GMT, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 26.07.2024 3:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 01:43:30PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Currently, the driver will happily register the switch/mux devices, and
> >> so long as the i2c master doesn't complain, the user would never know
> >> there's something wrong.
> >>
> >> Add a device id check (based on [1]) and return -ENODEV if the read
> >> fails or returns nonsense.
> >>
> >> Checking the value on a Qualcomm SM6115P-based Lenovo Tab P11 tablet,
> >> the ID mentioned in the datasheet does indeed show up:
> >>  fsa4480 1-0042: Found FSA4480 v1.1 (Vendor ID = 0)
> >>
> >> [1] https://www.onsemi.com/pdf/datasheet/fsa4480-d.pdf
> >>
> >> Fixes: 1dc246320c6b ("usb: typec: mux: Add On Semi fsa4480 driver")
> >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > You can't sign off on a patch twice, that makes no sense, sorry.
> 
> I'm losing access to the @linaro.org email and want to preserve the
> authorship there (as this patch was developed during work hours).
> 
> Then, the author's email doesn't match the sender's email, so I'm
> expected to sign off with the sender's one.
> 

The author is Linaro and as such the first s-o-b is correct/required.

> Should I assume that the maintainer trusts me to be the same person?
> 

I think in many cases you can assume that, but I find it reasonable that
you certify the origin of the patch anew, even though you happen to be
the same physical person.

Regards,
Bjorn