Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2018, 14:43:47 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Souptick, > > > > Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018, 22:34:30 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder: > >> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() to use > >> drm_mode_config_helper_suspend/resume(). > >> > >> With this conversion, rockchip_drm_fb_resume() and > >> rockchip_drm_fb_suspend() will not be used anymore. > >> Both of these functions can be removed. > >> > >> Also, in struct rockchip_drm_private state will not be > >> used anymore. So this can be removed forever. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Ajit Negi <ajitn.linux@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > the patch itself looks great, just a simple bookkeeping question. > > > > What role did Ajit play in creating the patch? If I remember correctly > > it is meant to be > > - 1st Signed-off: Patch-Author > > - 2nd Signed-off: E-Mail sender + patch possibly patch changes > > (optional of course if the same) > > > > So was this meant to be a Reviewed-by from Ajit? > > We both are working together for these patches to > convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume(). > That's the reason to add his name in 2nd Signed-off > in all similar patches. > > Is it a incorrect way to put 2nd Signed-off here ? Thanks for the clarification and the interesting question :-) I've just read through Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and it seems there is an "official" way to show that relationship, via a tag named "Co-Developed-by:" described under number 12. So I guess we could just adapt the patch accordingly, if that is ok with both of you (i.e. I can change this when applying, so no need to resend). Heiko _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
