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 <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>> Cc: Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Heiner Kallweit <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Andrew Lunn <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Liam Girdwood <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
>>> Acked-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
>>
>> 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 <[email protected]>
...
>>
>> 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
