On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:27:56PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 03/11/2022 12:13:09+0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> > From: Stefan Eichenberger <stefan.eichenberger@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > On an iMX6ULL the following message appears when a wakealarm is set:
> >
> > echo 0 > /sys/class/rtc/rtc1/wakealarm
> > rtc rtc1: Timeout trying to get valid LPSRT Counter read
> >
> > This does not always happen but is reproducible quite often (7 out of 10
> > times). The problem appears because the iMX6ULL is not able to read the
> > registers within one 32kHz clock cycle which is the base clock of the
> > RTC. Therefore, this patch allows a difference of up to 320 cycles
> > (10ms). 10ms was chosen to be big enough even on systems with less cpu
> > power (e.g. iMX6ULL). According to the reference manual a difference is
> > fine:
> > - If the two consecutive reads are similar, the value is correct.
> > The values have to be similar, not equal.
> >
> > Fixes: cd7f3a249dbe ("rtc: snvs: Add timeouts to avoid kernel lockups")
> > Reviewed-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Eichenberger <stefan.eichenberger@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Also, your SoB needs to match the sender address.
I'll fix it.
However there is something that I do not fully understand and I thought
it was not strictly required when forwarding patches like I just did.
How do you handle the very common case in which the patch author is the
corporate email address, but the email sender is a private one?
Normally you have:
- sender me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- first line of the email From: me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- SoB: me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with that the email sender does not match the last sob, but this is very
common, see for example https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220705085825.21255-1-max.oss.09@xxxxxxxxx/
Should we have an additional
- sob me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Therefore having 2 sob by the same individual, but with 2 different email
addresses?
Francesco
