Re: [PATCH v3 02/14] dt-bindings: media: rkisp1: Add i.MX8MP ISP example

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 21/11/2022 17:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/11/2022 14:50, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:16:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2022 11:38, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 09:04:29AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 21/11/2022 06:09, Paul Elder wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:36:31AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/11/2022 07:55, Paul Elder wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:06:14PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/11/2022 10:39, Paul Elder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Add an example to the rockchip-isp1 DT binding that showcases usage of
>>>>>>>>>> the parallel input of the ISP, connected to the CSI-2 receiver internal
>>>>>>>>>> to the i.MX8MP.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Missing SoB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't quite understand. I see an SoB right there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Laurent did not sent it. Did you run checkpatch before sending?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why he's on the "From:" in the beginning. checkpatch says it's
>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, indeed, checkpatch misses that feature (it's part of Greg's
>>>>> verify_signedoff.sh). Anyway, your SoB is missing, as Laurent did not
>>>>> send the patch.
>>>>
>>>> I thought adding an SoB was only required either when making changes or
>>>> when pushing commits through git, not when forwarding patches on mailing
>>>> lists ?
>>>
>>> Anyone touching the file should signed it off. You cannot send it
>>> without touching (e.g. git format-patch).
>>>
>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19-rc5/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L397
>>>
>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19-rc5/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L420
>>
>> The second link states
>>
>>   SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took as it was
>>   propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Linus, with the first
>>   SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author.
>>
>> This series will (eventually) be upstreamed by me through a pull request
>> to Mauro. Paul's SoB will thus not be needed. Of course you have no way
>> to know this when reviewing the series on the list.
>>
>> Adding a SoB line when taking a patch in a git tree is standard
>> practice, but when posting unmodified patches to a mailing list, there's
>> more of a grey area. Look at
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221024113058.096628238@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>> for instance, posted by Greg, but without his SoB.
> 
> I have no clue what Paul modified here what not. I am not going to
> investigate and I have no way to actually perform such investigation. I
> cannot verify the source.

BTW, rebasing is modifying and Paul probably did it (or is likely that
will rebase in the future). Greg did not perform rebases on these, I think.

> 
> The case with Greg, is indeed surprising, but I could perform the
> verification, because the work is both public and in known place.
> 
> It's expected for submitter to certify (c) from the list which was BTW
> expressed also many times during many reviews by many people.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Best regards,
Krzysztof