linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mmc: sdhci: Add PLL Enable support to internal clock setup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:07:17 +0300
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     "Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm@...lj.org>
Cc:     ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
        Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@...esyslogic.com.tw>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mmc: sdhci: Add PLL Enable support to internal
 clock setup

On 15/08/19 3:04 PM, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 02:27:44PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 13/08/19 1:56 AM, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
>>> The GL9750 and GL9755 chipsets, and possibly others, require PLL Enable
>>> setup as part of the internal clock setup as described in 3.2.1 Internal
>>> Clock Setup Sequence of SD Host Controller Simplified Specification
>>> Version 4.20.  This changes the timeouts to the new specification of
>>> 150ms for each step and is documented as safe for "prior versions which
>>> do not support PLL Enable."
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@...esyslogic.com.tw>
>>> Co-developed-by: Michael K Johnson <johnsonm@...lj.org>
>>
>> Did you mean for this patch to be "From:" Ben Chuang because otherwise
>> "Co-developed-by" the author is redundant.
> 
> Ben wrote the code and is the primary author. I helped with some
> changes to bring it closer to normal style, so I have definitely
> been a secondary co-developer. Ben's corporate email server adds a
> generic confidentiality notice outside his control, and we were
> informed that with that header on the email the patches could not
> be accepted.  We developed it in a git repository, so that I have
> not been "tainted" by the automatic confidentiality notice, and
> at Ben's request I have posted the work. To credit me as primary
> author would be fundamentally incorrect.
> 
> Are you saying that this work cannot be accepted until Ben chooses
> an alternative email provider besides his corporate email in order
> to avoid the spurious confidentiality notice, such that he is the
> sender of the email?
> 

No, there should be a "From:" line.  Here's an example:

	https://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=155966548112475&q=raw

If you had committed your changes with Ben as the author (git commit
--author) then "git format-patch" would have added the correct "From:" line.