Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 May 2020 21:55:23 +0530 | From | Sai Prakash Ranjan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] coresight: etm4x: Add support to disable trace unit power up |
| |
On 2020-05-15 21:28, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > 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. >
Now fixed all checkpatch warnings and addressed other review comments. Posted v3 - https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/1242572/
Thanks, Sai
-- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |