[RESEND,v2,1/2] dt-bindings: display: simple: add support for InnoLux G070ACE-L01

  From: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>

Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
string.

Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
  

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <richard.leitner@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
>
> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
> string.
>
> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>

nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.

> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml
> index 18241f4051d2..fd3e5ad769dc 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/panel/panel-simple.yaml
> @@ -174,6 +174,8 @@ properties:
>        - innolux,at043tn24
>          # Innolux AT070TN92 7.0" WQVGA TFT LCD panel
>        - innolux,at070tn92
> +        # Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel
> +      - innolux,g070ace-l01

I think panel-simple currently has no active maintainers. Given that
I've touched all these files in the past, I don't mind applying.

Pushed to drm-misc-next:

4b4b96826ba9 dt-bindings: display: simple: add support for InnoLux G070ACE-L01
  

On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <richard.leitner@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> From: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
>>
>> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
>> string.
>>
>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> 
> nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
> chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
> so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.

Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the
tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We should
not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct -
then fix the tools.



Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <richard.leitner@linux.dev> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> >>
> >> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
> >> string.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> >
> > nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
> > chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
> > so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.
>
> Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the
> tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We should
> not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct -
> then fix the tools.

Ah, interesting. I checked and as far as I could tell Richard had
manually added the tag when sending v2, so I didn't assume it as a
tool-added tag. I'm happy to let "b4" be the canonical thing that says
what the order should be.

OK, so I just tried this and I'm confused. I ran:

b4 am -P_ 20230201-innolux-g070ace-v2-2-2371e251dd40@skidata.com

...and when I check the patch that b4 spits out my "Reviewed-by" tag
is _after_ the "Signed-off-by" tag, just like I asked for.

Just in case Acked-by was somehow different than Reviewed-by, I went
back to the original version where you added the Acked-by:

 b4 am -P_ 20221118075856.401373-1-richard.leitner@linux.dev

...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
words, the patch file generated says:

> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

My "b4" is from Dec 1 of last year, so maybe something changed? Let's
update! OK, I synced b4 and now I'm at v0.12.2 from Match 10 (MARIO
day!). The behavior is unchanged.

Did I get something wrong in the above?
  

On 21/04/2023 18:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <richard.leitner@linux.dev> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
>>>>
>>>> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
>>>> string.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
>>>
>>> nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
>>> chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
>>> so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.
>>
>> Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the
>> tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We should
>> not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct -
>> then fix the tools.
> 
> Ah, interesting. I checked and as far as I could tell Richard had
> manually added the tag when sending v2, so I didn't assume it as a
> tool-added tag. I'm happy to let "b4" be the canonical thing that says
> what the order should be.
> 
> OK, so I just tried this and I'm confused. I ran:
> 
> b4 am -P_ 20230201-innolux-g070ace-v2-2-2371e251dd40@skidata.com
> 
> ...and when I check the patch that b4 spits out my "Reviewed-by" tag
> is _after_ the "Signed-off-by" tag, just like I asked for.
> 
> Just in case Acked-by was somehow different than Reviewed-by, I went
> back to the original version where you added the Acked-by:
> 
>  b4 am -P_ 20221118075856.401373-1-richard.leitner@linux.dev
> 
> ...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
> words, the patch file generated says:
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

We talk about `b4 trailers`, because the tag is applied by the
submitter, not by the maintainer.

> 
> Did I get something wrong in the above?

Your `b4 am` will of course put the tag later, because it is you who
applies the tag.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:45 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 21/04/2023 18:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21/04/2023 18:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:51 AM <richard.leitner@linux.dev> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Add Innolux G070ACE-L01 7" WVGA (800x480) TFT LCD panel compatible
> >>>> string.
> >>>>
> >>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> >>>
> >>> nit: as I understand it, ordering of tags is usually supposed to be
> >>> chronological. You signed off on this patch before Krzysztof acked it,
> >>> so the SoB should be above. I'll fix that when applying.
> >>
> >> Some people agree with this... but b4 disagrees, so I would say the
> >> tools should implement the right process and right decisions. We should
> >> not be correcting the tools' output, unless the tools are not correct -
> >> then fix the tools.
> >
> > Ah, interesting. I checked and as far as I could tell Richard had
> > manually added the tag when sending v2, so I didn't assume it as a
> > tool-added tag. I'm happy to let "b4" be the canonical thing that says
> > what the order should be.
> >
> > OK, so I just tried this and I'm confused. I ran:
> >
> > b4 am -P_ 20230201-innolux-g070ace-v2-2-2371e251dd40@skidata.com
> >
> > ...and when I check the patch that b4 spits out my "Reviewed-by" tag
> > is _after_ the "Signed-off-by" tag, just like I asked for.
> >
> > Just in case Acked-by was somehow different than Reviewed-by, I went
> > back to the original version where you added the Acked-by:
> >
> >  b4 am -P_ 20221118075856.401373-1-richard.leitner@linux.dev
> >
> > ...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
> > words, the patch file generated says:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
> >> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>
> We talk about `b4 trailers`, because the tag is applied by the
> submitter, not by the maintainer.
>
> >
> > Did I get something wrong in the above?
>
> Your `b4 am` will of course put the tag later, because it is you who
> applies the tag.

Ah, got it. So I guess from the perspective of "b4" every time the
author modifies a patch (like adding new tags to it) then it's a new
application of Signed-off-by and thus the old Signed-off-by is removed
from the top and a new one is added below all the tags that have been
received. Thus if b4 grabs all the tags off the mailing list for
applying it ends up in a different order than if it grabs all the tags
off the mailing list for sending a new version.

OK, I can understand that perspective. I'll keep it in mind.

-Doug
  

On 21/04/2023 18:51, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> ...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
>>> words, the patch file generated says:
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@skidata.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>
>> We talk about `b4 trailers`, because the tag is applied by the
>> submitter, not by the maintainer.
>>
>>>
>>> Did I get something wrong in the above?
>>
>> Your `b4 am` will of course put the tag later, because it is you who
>> applies the tag.
> 
> Ah, got it. So I guess from the perspective of "b4" every time the
> author modifies a patch (like adding new tags to it) then it's a new
> application of Signed-off-by and thus the old Signed-off-by is removed
> from the top and a new one is added below all the tags that have been
> received. Thus if b4 grabs all the tags off the mailing list for
> applying it ends up in a different order than if it grabs all the tags
> off the mailing list for sending a new version.
> 
> OK, I can understand that perspective. I'll keep it in mind.

Yeah. I actually agree with your point that submitter's SoB should
always be the last one, but I agree more with using process via
standardized tools. IOW, since I cannot change in this matter b4, I need
to agree with it. :)

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

April 21, 2023 1:01 PM, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Ah, got it. So I guess from the perspective of "b4" every time the
>> author modifies a patch (like adding new tags to it) then it's a new
>> application of Signed-off-by and thus the old Signed-off-by is removed
>> from the top and a new one is added below all the tags that have been
>> received. Thus if b4 grabs all the tags off the mailing list for
>> applying it ends up in a different order than if it grabs all the tags
>> off the mailing list for sending a new version.
>> 
>> OK, I can understand that perspective. I'll keep it in mind.
> 
> Yeah. I actually agree with your point that submitter's SoB should
> always be the last one, but I agree more with using process via
> standardized tools. IOW, since I cannot change in this matter b4, I need
> to agree with it. :)

FWIW, everyone disagrees on how it should be done (which is a totally normal state of things). B4 uses the "chain of custody" logic when it comes to trailers, described here:

https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/

In brief, the logic here is that the "Signed-off-by" trailer indicates where the chain of custody for all previous trailers ends. The following order:

Reviewed-by: Reviewer <>
Signed-off-by: Submitter <>
Signed-off-by: Submaintainer <>

Tells that it was the Submitter who collected and applied the Reviewed-by tag, which is why when someone runs "b4 trailers -u", their Signed-off-by is always moved to the bottom to indicate the proper chain of custody boundary.

The following order says something very different:

Signed-off-by: Submitter <>
Reviewed-by: Reviewer <>
Signed-off-by: Submaintainer <>

This indicates that the "Reviewed-by" trailer was collected by the Submaintainer, because it is below the chain-of-custody boundary of the Submitter.

The main reason is if Reviewer says "hey, I don't remember reviewing this, who put my name in there," the order will point at the person in whose custody section this tag shows up.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
-K