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.
.../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.
Thanks, Sai