On 2020-05-15 21:28, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
On 2020-05-15 21:21, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:37:13PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
On 2020-05-15 20:22, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:39, Sai Prakash Ranjan saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
On 2020-05-14 23:30, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
Good morning Sai,
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 04:29:15PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > From: Tingwei Zhang tingwei@codeaurora.org > > On some Qualcomm Technologies Inc. SoCs like SC7180, there > exists a hardware errata where the APSS (Application Processor > SubSystem)/CPU watchdog counter is stopped when ETM register > TRCPDCR.PU=1.
Fun stuff...
Yes :)
> Since the ETMs share the same power domain as > that of respective CPU cores, they are powered on when the > CPU core is powered on. So we can disable powering up of the > trace unit after checking for this errata via new property > called "qcom,tupwr-disable". > > Signed-off-by: Tingwei Zhang tingwei@codeaurora.org > Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org > Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org
Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: Tingwei Zhang tingwei@codeaurora.org
Tingwei is the author, so if I understand correctly, his signed-off-by should appear first, am I wrong?
It's a gray area and depends on who's code is more prevalent in the patch. If Tingwei wrote the most of the code then his name is in the "from:" section, yours as co-developer and he signs off on it (as I suggested). If you did most of the work then it is the opposite. Adding a Co-developed and a signed-off with the same name doesn't make sense.
I did check the documentation for submitting patches: Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. And it clearly states that "Co-developed-by must be followed by Signed-off by the co-author and the last Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch".
Quoting below from the doc:
Co-developed-by: <snip> ...Since Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author. Standard sign-off procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
Ah yes, glad to see that got clarified. You can ignore my recommendation on that snippet.
> --- > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt | 6 ++++ > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 29 > ++++++++++++-------
Please split in two patches.
Sure, I will split the dt-binding into separate patch, checkpatch did warn.
And you still sent me the patch... I usually run checkpatch before all the submissions I review and flatly ignore patches that return errors. You got lucky...
I did not mean to ignore it or else I wouldn't have run checkpatch itself. I checked other cases like "arm,scatter-gather" where the binding and the driver change was in a single patch, hence I thought it's not a very strict rule.
The patch has another warning for a line over 80 characters, that should have been fixed before sending. Putting DT changes in a separate patch is always better for the DT people. They review tons of patches and making their life easier is always a good thing.
Ok, I will fix this and resend. I did not want to change it in case if it affects readability since most maintainers prefer to ignore this 80 characters warning if it affects readability. I will keep this in mind for future patches as well.
Now fixed all checkpatch warnings and addressed other review comments. Posted v3 - https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/1242572/
Thanks, Sai