Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] dt-bindings: display: bridge: add sam9x75-lvds compatible

[<Dharma.B@microchip.com>]

Hi Krzysztof,

On 09/02/24 9:40 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 09/02/2024 17:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/02/2024 16:02, Dharma.B@microchip.com wrote:
>>> On 09/02/24 7:50 pm, Dharma B wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/24 2:31 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>>>> the content is safe
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 11:27, Dharma Balasubiramani wrote:
>>>>>> Add the 'sam9x75-lvds' compatible binding, which describes the Low
>>>>>> Voltage
>>>>>> Differential Signaling (LVDS) Controller found on some Microchip's
>>>>>> sam9x7
>>>>>> series System-on-Chip (SoC) devices. This binding will be used to define
>>>>>> the properties and configuration for the LVDS Controller in DT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dharma Balasubiramani <dharma.b@microchip.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not tested...
>>>>>
>>>>> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people
>>>>> and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an older
>>>>> kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure you base
>>>>> your patches on recent Linux kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tools like b4 or scripts/get_maintainer.pl provide you proper list of
>>>>> people, so fix your workflow. Tools might also fail if you work on some
>>>>> ancient tree (don't, instead use mainline), work on fork of kernel
>>>>> (don't, instead use mainline) or you ignore some maintainers (really
>>>>> don't). Just use b4 and everything should be fine, although remember
>>>>> about `b4 prep --auto-to-cc` if you added new patches to the patchset.
>>>>>
>>>>> You missed at least devicetree list (maybe more), so this won't be
>>>>> tested by automated tooling. Performing review on untested code might be
>>>>> a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for the oversight, somehow it got missed.
>>>
>>> The get_maintainer.pl seems to be inconsistent with the results.
>>>
>>> linux$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl *patch | wc -l
>>> ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file '0000-cover-letter.patch' doesn't
>>> appear to be a patch.  Add -f to options?
>>> 31
>>> linux$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl *patch | wc -l
>>> ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file '0000-cover-letter.patch' doesn't
>>> appear to be a patch.  Add -f to options?
>>> 29
>>> linux$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl *patch | wc -l
>>> ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file '0000-cover-letter.patch' doesn't
>>> appear to be a patch.  Add -f to options?
>>> 30
>>> linux$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl *patch | wc -l
>>> ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file '0000-cover-letter.patch' doesn't
>>> appear to be a patch.  Add -f to options?
>>> 30
>>
>> Why would you add 30 addresses, including many unrelated people, to the
>> cc-list? You must add only maintainers (so also reviewers) and mailing
>> lists.
> 
> Really, why do you Cc MM folks on this patch? Just read what
> get_maintainer.pl tells you, e.g. when it says that someone made one
> commit to maintainers file, shall this person be Cc-ed? No, it should be
> obvious...


Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I sincerely apologize for 
any oversight. Moving forward, I will ensure to utilize 'b4 prep 
--auto-to-cc' to obtain the accurate To and CC list.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Dharma B.