Hi Liu,
On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 03:27:42PM +0800, Liu Peibao wrote:
> On 2024/11/6 4:30, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 06:18:36PM +0800, Liu Peibao wrote:
> >> On 2024/11/1 16:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> External Mail: This email originated from OUTSIDE of the organization!
> >>> Do not click links, open attachments or provide ANY information unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 04:12:43PM +0800, Liu Peibao wrote:
> >>>> When Tx FIFO empty and last command with no STOP bit set, the master
> >>>> holds SCL low. If I2C_DYNAMIC_TAR_UPDATE is not set, BIT(13) MST_ON_HOLD
> >>>> of IC_RAW_INTR_STAT is not Enabled, causing the __i2c_dw_disable()
> >>>> timeout. This is quiet similar as commit 2409205acd3c ("i2c: designware:
> >>>> fix __i2c_dw_disable() in case master is holding SCL low") mentioned.
> >>>> Check BIT(7) MST_HOLD_TX_FIFO_EMPTY in IC_STATUS also which is available
> >>>> when IC_STAT_FOR_CLK_STRETCH is set.
> >>>
> >>> Who are those people? Why Angus Chen is not a committer of the change?
> >>> Please, consult with the Submitting Patches documentation to clarify on these
> >>> tags.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We have discussed and analyzed this issue together. I developed this patch.
> >> This patch was also reviewed by Angus Chen and Xiaowu Ding.
> >
> > The tag list follows a specific order: tags are sorted
> > sequentially, with the last Signed-off-by (SoB) being the person
> > sending the patch, which is your email.
> >
> > The other SoBs are fine, but if someone contributed to
> > development, consider using "Co-developed-by" instead.
> >
> > If someone tested the patch, use "Tested-by"; if they reviewed
> > it, use "Reviewed-by"; and if they simply agreed with the
> > change, use "Acked-by."
> >
> > Please ensure that "Reviewed-by," "Tested-by," or "Acked-by"
> > tags are visible in the mailing list. I do not typically accept
> > offline R-b, T-b, or A-b.
> >
> > This is why Andy asked about those contributors. Three SoBs can
> > seem unusual, but it's acceptable if justified. Reviewers may
> > ask for clarification, and it's fine to specify contributors'
> > roles. You can also provide extra details after the "---"
> > delimiter.
> >
>
> I think this tag list should be much better than the original. ^-^
>
> Fixes: 2409205acd3c ("i2c: designware: fix __i2c_dw_disable() in case master is holding SCL low")
> Co-developed-by: xiaowu.ding <xiaowu.ding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: xiaowu.ding <xiaowu.ding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Co-developed-by: Angus Chen <angus.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Angus Chen <angus.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Peibao <loven.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, this make much more sense now.
Just one question, do we want to keep xiaowu.ding or Xiaowu Ding?
Can I change it to the second way? It looks better and that's how
it's normally signed.
Andi
> >> And in this case, should I replace the "SoBs" with "Reviewed-by"?
> >>
> >>> Also, sounds to me that Fixes tag is needed.
> >>>
> >>
> >> How about this tag:
> >> Fixes: 2409205acd3c ("i2c: designware: fix __i2c_dw_disable() in case master is holding SCL low")
> >
> > Sounds reasonable.
> >
> > For accepting this patch I need an ack from either Andy, Jarkko
> > or Mika.
> >
> > As long as the fixes are limited to the commit message there is
> > no need to resend the patch.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andi
>
> Got it!
>
> BR,
> Peibao
