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 <[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 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
