Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] hwmon: (emc1403) Convert to use OF bindings
From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Mon Jul 27 2026 - 11:39:59 EST
On 7/27/26 01:14, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
сб, 25 лип. 2026 р. о 17:23 Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> пише:
On 7/25/26 06:24, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
чт, 23 лип. 2026 р. о 09:28 Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx> пише:
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 12:59:34PM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
From: Jonas Schwöbel <jonasschwoebel@xxxxxxxx>
Add OF match compatible table to be able to use this driver with Device
Trees.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Schwöbel <jonasschwoebel@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Please put your S-o-b line last.
If S-o-b's should be chronological, then this order is correct.
Guenter added his reviewed-by after I have added my signed-off-by.
That refers to S-o-B, not to Reviewed-by: trailers.
Do we really have to argue about something like this ?
I am not arguing, looking for answers.
Do I have to mandate the order of non-SoB trailers for this subsystem ?
That actually may be a decent idea. In you have this stated strictly
for subsystem or have a consensus on kernel level then you can just
point a link to a documentation. Might simplify your maintainer work
;)
Up to now there used to be a common consensus, and it didn't seem necessary
to specifically mandate anything but the Signed-off-by: order. Unfortunately,
we live in a time where everyone deems it necessary to question everything.
That doesn't just include the order of trailers. I even get buggy patches
where the authors argue that "but this other driver has the same bug, so it
should be ok to introduce it here as well".
No, I am not going to explicitly mandate the order of trailers. If I'd do
that, people would just find something else to argue about. I'll keep doing
what I have always been doing: The more pointless arguments, the lower my
review priority.
Guenter