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@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.
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
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
