Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: display: lt9611: Support single Port B input

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 07/02/2026 06:22, Roger Shimizu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 2:56 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/02/2026 10:49, Roger Shimizu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 11:08 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/02/2026 21:31, Roger Shimizu wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 5:07 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 07:15:45PM +0800, Hongyang Zhao wrote:
>>>>>>> The LT9611 has two DSI input ports (Port A and Port B). Update the
>>>>>>> binding to clearly document the port mapping and allow using Port B
>>>>>>> alone when DSI is physically connected to Port B only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes:
>>>>>>> - Clarify port@0 corresponds to DSI Port A input
>>>>>>> - Clarify port@1 corresponds to DSI Port B input
>>>>>>> - Change port requirement from mandatory port@0 to anyOf port@0/port@1,
>>>>>>>   allowing either port to be used independently
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hongyang Zhao <hongyang.zhao@thundersoft.com>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Roger Shimizu <rosh@debian.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did this review happen? V1 had this tag, but the patch was
>>>>>> completely different, which means you were supposed to drop the tag.
>>>>>> Please perform review in public.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI. v2 was updated per review feedback, which is public:
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/7d9041a3-9d2b-469a-9fa7-89d53bbd2a1f@linaro.org/
>>>>
>>>> Link above is not from Roger, so again - where did the review leading to
>>>> above tag happen?
>>>
>>> Per feedback of v1, v2 was quite different than v1.
>>> For v2, it's close to initial review, because it looks like a new patch.
>>
>> Where was the review of v2 given?
>>
>> The patch is entirely different. I already said it. I also said what is
>> expected in such case. It is also documented:
>>
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
> 
> Thanks for the guide!
> Yes, v2 was reviewed in private. I'll inform Hongyang to remove the
> tag when he sends the next series.

I am repeating myself but only because you really avoid answering.

I understand v1 was reviewed in private, before posting, but why are you
developing in private also v2? After v1 was posted, this should be all
done in public.

I have no trust in private reviews happening between versions.
Especially if v1 is send on 27th Jan and next day v2 is sent supposedly
reviewed in private. Really?



Best regards,
Krzysztof