On 29/10/2019 18:24, Joe Perches wrote: > 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. It was not a sarcastic question. I just wanted to be sure the Change-Id is something we always want to remove. There are some of them in the kernel log and I got a doubt. checkpatch is perfectly fine for me. -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
