Hi, On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 8:46 PM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/15/25 6:12 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 9:30 AM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Change the sony-td4353-jdi panel to use multi style functions for > >> improved error handling. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipi...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-sony-td4353-jdi.c | 107 ++++-------------- > >> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-) > > > > Nice diffstat and so much boilerplate error code removed. :-) > > > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> > > If I rebase both the patches into 1, should I still add the Reviewed-by > tag?
Sorry, I was away, but it looks like you've sent v2 anyway and what you did there is fine. In this case my "Reviewed-by" for the second patch was more me helping myself keep track of the fact that I'd already looked at all the contents on this patch and I was happy with it. For the record, most of the time it seems like you're expected to just "guess" a bit what a reviewer would want. The absolute safest thing you can do is to remove the "Reviewed-by" (like you did) but then also "after the cut" in your new patch (like where you put version history) indicate why you didn't carry the Reviewed-by. Like you could say: NOTE: removed Doug's review tag in v2 because it was only provided for one of the two patches that were squashed together. Then if I wondered why you didn't carry my tag I'd have my answer. Some reviewers get upset if you don't carry their tag forward and you don't explain why you didn't. ;-) -Doug
