Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:46:28 +0200 | From | Robert Richter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] cxl/acpi: Extract component registers of restricted hosts from RCRB |
| |
On 18.10.22 20:57:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 8:42 PM Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> wrote: > > > > On 18.10.22 15:31:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 3:24 PM Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > A downstream port must be connected to a component register block. > > > > For restricted hosts the base address is determined from the RCRB. The > > > > RCRB is provided by the host's CEDT CHBS entry. Rework CEDT parser to > > > > get the RCRB and add code to extract the component register block from > > > > it. > > > > > > > > RCRB's BAR[0..1] point to the component block containing CXL subsystem > > > > component registers. MEMBAR extraction follows the PCI base spec here, > > > > esp. 64 bit extraction and memory range alignment (6.0, 7.5.1.2.1). > > > > > > > > Note: Right now the component register block is used for HDM decoder > > > > capability only which is optional for RCDs. If unsupported by the RCD, > > > > the HDM init will fail. It is future work to bypass it in this case. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@amd.com> > > > > > > What does this S-o-B mean? If this person is your co-developer, you > > > need to add a Co-developed-by tag to clarify that. > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> > > > > I picked up an early patch and modified it significantly, so I just > > left the S-o-B. > > In that case the right thing to do is to mention the original author > in the changelog instead of retaining the S-o-b. > > > I could change this to a Co-developed-by tag. > > Co-developed-by should be used in addition to and not instead of S-o-b > when one of the authors is sending a patch. However, all of the > authors need to be familiar with the patch in the form in which it is > being sent then. > > > IMO, the S-o-B is ok, but could be wrong here. > > It isn't, at least not without a Co-developed-by tag. > > There are 3 cases in which S-o-b is OK AFAICS: > > 1. When it matches the From: address. > 2. When there is a matching Co-developed-by. > 3. When maintainers pick up patches and add their own S-o-b. > > This case is none of the above.
Will add a Co-developed-by tag in my next version. Thanks for pointing that out.
-Robert
| |