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 <[email protected]> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> 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 send lots of stuff w/ my kernel.org address but only ever sign off with my work email since that's where attribution is going.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
