On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 18:21 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 29/10/2019 18:15, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 18:11 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > On 29/10/2019 17:45, Pascal Paillet wrote: > > > > Fix IRQ flood on low threshold by too ways: > > > > > > Can you state the issue first ? > > > > > > > - improve temperature reading resolution, > > > > - add an hysteresis to the low threshold: on low threshold interrupt, > > > > it is not possible to get the temperature value that has fired the > > > > interrupt. The time to acquire a new value is enough for the CPU to > > > > become hotter than the current low threshold. > > [] > > > > Signed-off-by: Pascal Paillet <p.paillet@xxxxxx> > > > > Change-Id: I3b63b8aab38fd651a165c4e69a2d090b3c6f5db3 > > > > > > Please remove the Change-Id tag. > > > > > > Joe, Andy? checkpatch does not see the Change-Id, is it the expected > > > behavior? > > > > Yes. It's after a sign-off so checkpatch doesn't care. > > Ah, I guess it is for Gerrit but we don't want those Change-Id in the > kernel history, right? So remove it from the patch. checkpatch is not a perfect tool. checkpatch will never be a perfect tool. It's not possible for checkpatch to be a perfect tool.
