On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:45:11AM +0200, Jerry wrote: > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on 6/21/20 10:58 AM: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 09:58:40PM +0200, Jerry wrote: > > > usbserial: add cp210x support for icount to detect parity error in received data > > Why is this here? > > > Because it seems be mandatory? > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/5.Posting.html#patch-formatting-and-changelogs > > "A one-line description of what the patch does. This message should be > enough for a reader who sees it with no other context to figure out the > scope of the patch; it is the line that will show up in the “short form” > changelogs. This message is usually formatted with the relevant subsystem > name first, followed by the purpose of the patch. For example: > gpio: fix build on CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS=n" Yes, that should have been the first line of the git commit, which ends up being the subject line for your email. > Did I misunderstand your rule or used wrong name of subsystem? Should I > type? > USB serial: add cp210x support for icount to detect parity error in received > data That would have been fine too, you can't do it twice, once as a subject and once as the first line in the email, otherwise that would look really odd, right? > > > Motivation - current version of cp210x driver doesn't provide any way to detect > > > a parity error in received data from userspace. Some serial protocols like STM32 > > > bootloader protect data only by even parity so application needs to detect > > > whether parity error happened to read again peripheral data. > > > > > > I created a simple patch which adds support for icount (ioctl TIOCGICOUNT) which > > > sends GET_COMM_STATUS command to CP210X and according received flags increments > > > fields for parity error, frame error, break and overrun. > > > So application can detect an error condition after reading data from ttyUSB > > > and repeat operation. There is no impact for applications which don't > > > call ioctl TIOCGICOUNT. > > > This patch is also placed at http://yyy.jrr.cz/cp210x.patch (my first patch) > > Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the > > kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order > > to properly describe the change. > I read it, but still not sure what exactly was wrong? Yes, I wrapped lines > of description to 80 colums and now I noticed that only 75 columns is > allowed but I doubt that it is all? That is one thing, but also the "This patch..." should not be in a changelog, right? Look at the other changes sent to the list for examples of how to do this. > > > Signed-off-by: Jaromir Skorpil <Jerry@xxxxxx> > > This does not match your From: line :( > I supposed that only mail address in From line matter? > I understand that real name is mandatory only for Signed-off-by field? It has to match the From: line of your email to ensure that this really is the same person. thanks, greg k-h
