[PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: display: add verisilicon,dc

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 24/11/2025 13:05, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 12:27:09PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 24/11/2025 12:13, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>> 在 2025-11-24星期一的 12:09 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道：
>>>> On 24/11/2025 12:04, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>>>> 在 2025-11-24星期一的 12:01 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道：
>>>>>> On 24/11/2025 11:52, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>>>>>> Verisilicon has a series of display controllers prefixed with
>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> with self-identification facility like their GC series GPUs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Add a device tree binding for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends on the specific DC model, it can have either one or two
>>>>>>> display
>>>>>>> outputs, and each display output could be set to DPI signal or
>>>>>>> "DP"
>>>>>>> signal (which seems to be some plain parallel bus to HDMI
>>>>>>> controllers).
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <uwu at icenowy.me>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <zhengxingda at iscas.ac.cn>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong DCO chain order. You send it as icenowy.me, so this must be
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> SoB. This identity is the last one certifying DCO. Please kindly
>>>>>> read
>>>>>> submitting patches, so you know what you are certifying here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I mapped the @iscas.ac.cn mail to the @icenowy.me one in the
>>>>> last
>>>>> patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe I should make it the first patch?
>>>>
>>>> .mailmap has effect on b4 and git send-email, so maybe that's the
>>>> answer. The problem is that:
>>>> 1. This email has sender address @icenowy.me
>>>> 2. It's SoB is not the last one.
>>>
>>> Well, I think a patch that is already sent shouldn't have the From
>>> field changing when bumping revision, and a patch modified by one
>>> identity should have the modifying one's SoB added.
>>>
>>> So here I am using the @icenowy.me mail (which can represent the
>>> @iscas.ac.cn mail according to the mailmap) to send the patch that is
>>> processed by @iscas.ac.cn mail.
>>>
>>> Sending the patch with @iscas.ac.cn mail needs some extra setup
>>> (because of some weird security requirement).
>>
>> I did not ask you to change from. Please read carefully "You send it as
>> icenowy.me, so this must be last sob"
>>
>> and later I re-iterated.
>>
>> If you insist on not fixing the chain, that's a NAK from me because you
>> must follow the DCO process.
> 
> I don't really get what the fuss is with the dual signoff, what's the
> point having both when they represent the same person? Pretty sure it
> was you (Krzysztof) and Arnd that told me not to both doing the double
> signoff.

I do not object having or not having dual signed off HERE.

I never said that. Just like I never said "From" has to be changed.

So repeating THIRD time: sender's SoB cannot be somewhere else than the
last one.

... and before you attribute me another thing I did not say - if you
change the "From" field, rules will be different a bit...


Best regards,
Krzysztof