Hi Mathieu,
On 2020-05-15 20:22, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:39, Sai Prakash Ranjan
<saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Tingwei Zhang <tingwei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
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
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
