linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dma: imx-sdma: add clock ratio 1:1 check

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEnQRZCwtbbJmTPT+J1q=5UvxjwZvkcoJxY3AJgBgXiPz0L2wA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 20 Jan 2019 20:00:29 +0200
From:   Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
To:     Angus Ainslie <angus@...ea.ca>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dma: imx-sdma: add clock ratio 1:1 check

On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:38 PM Angus Ainslie <angus@...ea.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 2019-01-20 02:58, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:32 AM Angus Ainslie (Purism) <angus@...ea.ca>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On i.mx8 mscale B0 chip, AHB/SDMA clock ratio 2:1 can't be supportted,
> >> since SDMA clock ratio has to be increased to 250Mhz, AHB can't reach
> >> to 500Mhz, so use 1:1 instead.
> >>
> >> based on NXP commit MLK-16841-1
> >
> > Hi Angus,
> >
> > Thanks for doing this!
> >
> > I'm not sure specifying the MLK here helps. I think it would be better
> > to somehow add the original Signed-off-by and mention that the commit
> > was pulled from NXP linux-imx tree.
>
> If it was exactly the same patch I would have but as I added the lines
> in
> sdma_run_channel0 I didn't think it would be right to put signed off by
> "Robin Gong <yibin.gong@....com>" as the code isn't what he signed off
> on.

I see your point. I often encounter this scenario when sending patches.
I think the best solution would be to mention in the commit message
the author of the initial patch which you based your work on.