On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:12:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 4/12/23 08:37, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:14:46AM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 7:56 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 12/04/2023 13:49, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/12/2023 1:09 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > > > On 11/04/2023 18:59, Jim Quinlan wrote: > > > > > > > Regarding "brcm,enable-l1ss": > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Broadcom STB/CM PCIe HW -- a core that is also used by RPi SOCs -- > > > > > > > requires the driver probe() to deliberately place the HW one of three > > > > > > > CLKREQ# modes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (a) CLKREQ# driven by the RC unconditionally > > > > > > > (b) CLKREQ# driven by the EP for ASPM L0s, L1 > > > > > > > (c) Bidirectional CLKREQ#, as used for L1 Substates (L1SS). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The HW+driver can tell the difference between downstream devices that > > > > > > > need (a) and (b), but does not know when to configure (c). Further, the > > > > > > > HW may cause a CPU abort on boot if guesses wrong regarding the need for > > > > > > > (c). So we introduce the boolean "brcm,enable-l1ss" property to indicate > > > > > > > that (c) is desired. Setting this property only makes sense when the > > > > > > > downstream device is L1SS-capable and the OS is configured to activate > > > > > > > this mode (e.g. policy==superpowersave). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This property is already present in the Raspian version of Linux, but the > > > > > > > upstream driver implementaion that will follow adds more details and > > > > > > > > > > > > typo, implementation > > > > > > > > > > > > > discerns between (a) and (b). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding "brcm,completion-timeout-us" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our HW will cause a CPU abort if the L1SS exit time is longer than the > > > > > > > PCIe transaction completion abort timeout. We've been asked to make this > > > > > > > configurable, so we are introducing "brcm,completion-timeout-us". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened here? Where is the changelog? > > > > > > > > > > It is in the cover letter: > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230411165919.23955-1-jim2101024@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > > > but it does not look like the cover letter was copied to you or Rob. > > > > > > > > As you said, I did not get it. > > > > > > Yes, sorry about that; I use a wrapper over the "cocci_cc" script and > > > I need to modify one or both scripts to send the cover to the > > > superset of recipients in the constituent commits. > > > > Try out 'b4'. It's much easier. > > > > In any case, I don't read cover letters. Changes to a patch belong with > > the patch. > > This is not what most other maintainers do, and there does not appear to be > a general consensus amongst maintainers that the changes belong in the > individual patches, or in the cover letter. Well, I stole that phrase from someone else (gregkh). > Some trees like the networking > tree do merge commits of patch sets where the cover letter is used as part > of the merge commit message. Other maintainers don't, and some want the > change log after the '---' and some do not. I'm not aware of anyone except for DRM wanting the changelog in the final commits, but that's really a different issue. I'm pretty sure no one will complain about a changelog in the patches. I guess you just have to duplicate it if you think it should be in both. b4 could be taught to do that I suppose. IMO, the cover letter should have a higher level changelog than the individual patches. Rob
