Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 May 2020 21:28:39 +0530 | From | Sai Prakash Ranjan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] coresight: etm4x: Add support to disable trace unit power up |
| |
Hi Mathieu,
On 2020-05-15 21:21, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:37:13PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: >> Hi Mathieu, >> >> On 2020-05-15 20:22, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >> > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:39, Sai Prakash Ranjan >> > <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Mathieu, >> > > >> > > On 2020-05-14 23:30, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >> > > > Good morning Sai, >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 04:29:15PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: >> > > >> From: Tingwei Zhang <tingwei@codeaurora.org> >> > > >> >> > > >> On some Qualcomm Technologies Inc. SoCs like SC7180, there >> > > >> exists a hardware errata where the APSS (Application Processor >> > > >> SubSystem)/CPU watchdog counter is stopped when ETM register >> > > >> TRCPDCR.PU=1. >> > > > >> > > > Fun stuff... >> > > > >> > > >> > > Yes :) >> > > >> > > >> Since the ETMs share the same power domain as >> > > >> that of respective CPU cores, they are powered on when the >> > > >> CPU core is powered on. So we can disable powering up of the >> > > >> trace unit after checking for this errata via new property >> > > >> called "qcom,tupwr-disable". >> > > >> >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Tingwei Zhang <tingwei@codeaurora.org> >> > > >> Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org> >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org> >> > > > >> > > > Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Tingwei Zhang <tingwei@codeaurora.org> >> > > > >> > > >> > > Tingwei is the author, so if I understand correctly, his signed-off-by >> > > should appear first, am I wrong? >> > >> > It's a gray area and depends on who's code is more prevalent in the >> > patch. If Tingwei wrote the most of the code then his name is in the >> > "from:" section, yours as co-developer and he signs off on it (as I >> > suggested). If you did most of the work then it is the opposite. >> > Adding a Co-developed and a signed-off with the same name doesn't make >> > sense. >> > >> >> I did check the documentation for submitting patches: >> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. And it clearly states >> that "Co-developed-by must be followed by Signed-off by the co-author >> and the last Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer >> submitting the patch". >> >> Quoting below from the doc: >> >> Co-developed-by: <snip> ...Since >> Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be >> immediately >> followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author. Standard >> sign-off >> procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should >> reflect >> the >> chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of >> whether >> the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the >> last >> Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the >> patch. > > Ah yes, glad to see that got clarified. You can ignore my > recommendation on > that snippet. > >> >> > > >> > > >> --- >> > > >> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt | 6 ++++ >> > > >> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 29 >> > > >> ++++++++++++------- >> > > > >> > > > Please split in two patches. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Sure, I will split the dt-binding into separate patch, checkpatch did >> > > warn. >> > >> > And you still sent me the patch... I usually run checkpatch before >> > all the submissions I review and flatly ignore patches that return >> > errors. You got lucky... >> > >> >> I did not mean to ignore it or else I wouldn't have run checkpatch >> itself. >> I checked other cases like "arm,scatter-gather" where the binding and >> the >> driver change was in a single patch, hence I thought it's not a very >> strict >> rule. > > The patch has another warning for a line over 80 characters, that > should have > been fixed before sending. Putting DT changes in a separate patch is > always > better for the DT people. They review tons of patches and making their > life > easier is always a good thing. >
Ok, I will fix this and resend. I did not want to change it in case if it affects readability since most maintainers prefer to ignore this 80 characters warning if it affects readability. I will keep this in mind for future patches as well.
Thanks, Sai -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |