On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:01:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Correct a typo in the description of interaction between > > the TCM and MMU. > > > > Found by inspection. > > > > Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Here too I have to ask: what does this signoff chain mean? If two > developers were needed for a single-character typo fix, then a > Co-developed-by line is appropriate. If you are forwarding a patch from > Louis, then a From: line to get the authorship right is indicated ... ? Hi Jon, The patch was created by me. Due to internal processes a release by a colleague is provided, that is the purpose of Louis's sign off (overkill in this case, I agree). If Louis's sign-off is not necessary from your perspective then I'm happy for you to drop it or for my to repost the patch without it. > > Documentation/arm/tcm.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst > > index b256f9783883..1dc6c39220f9 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst > > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ CPU so it is usually wise not to overlap any physical RAM with > > the TCM. > > > > The TCM memory can then be remapped to another address again using > > -the MMU, but notice that the TCM if often used in situations where > > +the MMU, but notice that the TCM is often used in situations where > > the MMU is turned off. To avoid confusion the current Linux > > implementation will map the TCM 1 to 1 from physical to virtual > > Thanks, > > jon
