[PATCH V9 0/2] media: i2c: Add support for DW9768 VCM

[Dongchun Zhu]

Hi Sakari,

Sorry I just sent email using outlook where default format is HTML, now
I use evolution, one Linux mail client that I used to send upstream
patch previously.

On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 08:34 +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Dongchun,
> 
> Please don't send HTML e-mail to Linux kernel related mailing lists.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:48:56AM +0000, Dongchun Zhu (朱东春) wrote:
> >  Hi Sakari,
> > 
> >  Sorry to bother you again, but I am so confused about the questions you raised.
> >  I just synced mainline: 5.8-rc3 tarball from https://www.kernel.org/, on which I ran the git am <patch> command.
> >  The patch-applying process shows no error.
> >  -----------------8<-------------------
> >  [mtk15013 at mtkslt307 linux]$git apply --check media-i2c-Add-support-for-DW9768-VCM.patch
> >  [mtk15013 at mtkslt307 linux]$git am media-i2c-Add-support-for-DW9768-VCM.patch
> >  Applying: media: dt-bindings: media: i2c: Document DW9768 bindings
> >  Applying: media: i2c: dw9768: Add DW9768 VCM driver
> >  -----------------8<-------------------
> > 
> >  On the other hand, I also compared dongwoon,dw9768.yaml file with other media device dt-bindings(like imx219.yaml and ov8856.yaml).
> >  It seems there are no apparent differences between them.
> >  Especially, the sentence '# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)' shall be common.
> >  I dunno why here dongwoon,dw9768.yaml reports trailing whitespace warnings while ov8856.yaml is silent.
> > 
> >  For the patch failed on MAINTAINERS, I am still curious what's wrong.
> >  In fact, I locally have run parse-maintainers.pl script to check MAINTAINERS file before submitting patch.
> >  The result also reports no errors.
> >  -----------------8<-------------------
> >  [mtk15013 at mtkslt307 linux]$perl scripts/parse-maintainers.pl
> >  [mtk15013 at mtkslt307 linux]$ls
> >  -----------------8<-------------------
> > 
> >  As to Base64 encoding, I checked each patch file again. They are all encoded in UTF-8.
> >  As https://www.base64encode.org/ says, for an example, '77' in ASCII format would be changed to 'T' in Based64-encoded format.
> >  This means there shall be messy code if we adpoting Based64-encoded format.
> >  But I cannot see garbled messages in the current patches.
> > 
> >  The DW9768 serials-patch is attached.
> >  @Tomasz @Andy @Rob could anyone help try to see whether the patch can be cherry-picked on Linux master branch or not?
> >  Patchwork link:
> >  https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11633291/
> 
> Both of the patches appear to contain only ASCII characters.
> 
> I did some research on this. It seems that the base64 encoded message body
> does have carriage returns, in both cases. Git am does not attempt to
> remove them in that case, but Patchwork does. Hence the files are fine if
> you download them from Patchwork --- where the mbox files have neither
> carriage returns nor base64 encoding.
> 
> What does the file command say about the patch files produced by git
> format-patch? My guess is that something in between your local computer and
> LMML (and other mail servers) base64 encodes the message body. But where
> are the carriage returns added? Nevertheless they seem to be added before
> the base64 conversion.
> 

Hm... I used the file command to check the diff patch generated from git
format-patch and that downloaded from Patchwork, they are both ASCII
text.

In fact, we could also open the diff patch with notepad++ tool, if the
EOL conversion is UNIX/OSX Format, end-of-line character would be LF.
For the DW9768 patch, when we click the toolbar button "Show All
Characters", there is no carriage return(CR) at the end of each line,
but LF instead for all EOLs.

> I think this is also a git issue, but something that is very hard to
> encounter.
> 
> ...
> 
> >  ************* MEDIATEK Confidentiality Notice ********************
> >  The information contained in this e-mail message (including any
> >  attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise
> >  exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be
> >  conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination,
> >  distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its
> >  attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may
> >  be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe
> >  that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> >  immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of
> >  this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not
> >  disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!
> 
> Did you mean this?
> 

This is auto-generated by some mechanism when sending email to the
address belong to an external organization.
It mainly serves as a reminder, please don't care too much : -)