[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFqt6zbd5pJJEV+9_sqs3bML18gpWROBjGA13VeK3AWFgJ_u+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 18:44:24 +0530
From: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
To: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: hjc@...k-chips.com, airlied@...ux.ie,
Ajit Linux <ajitn.linux@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/rockchip: Convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume()
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2018, 14:43:47 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder:
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de> wrote:
>> > Hi Souptick,
>> >
>> > Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018, 22:34:30 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder:
>> >> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() to use
>> >> drm_mode_config_helper_suspend/resume().
>> >>
>> >> With this conversion, rockchip_drm_fb_resume() and
>> >> rockchip_drm_fb_suspend() will not be used anymore.
>> >> Both of these functions can be removed.
>> >>
>> >> Also, in struct rockchip_drm_private state will not be
>> >> used anymore. So this can be removed forever.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ajit Negi <ajitn.linux@...il.com>
>> >
>> > the patch itself looks great, just a simple bookkeeping question.
>> >
>> > What role did Ajit play in creating the patch? If I remember correctly
>> > it is meant to be
>> > - 1st Signed-off: Patch-Author
>> > - 2nd Signed-off: E-Mail sender + patch possibly patch changes
>> > (optional of course if the same)
>> >
>> > So was this meant to be a Reviewed-by from Ajit?
>>
>> We both are working together for these patches to
>> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume().
>> That's the reason to add his name in 2nd Signed-off
>> in all similar patches.
>>
>> Is it a incorrect way to put 2nd Signed-off here ?
>
> Thanks for the clarification and the interesting question :-)
>
> I've just read through Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> and it seems there is an "official" way to show that relationship, via a
> tag named "Co-Developed-by:" described under number 12.
>
> So I guess we could just adapt the patch accordingly, if that is ok with
> both of you (i.e. I can change this when applying, so no need to resend).
We are ok with it :-)
>
>
> Heiko
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists