linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coresight: etm4x: Add support to disable trace unit power up

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <a0f8f01f28506e10001885e387d3cb4f@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 May 2020 20:37:13 +0530
From:   Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Coresight ML <coresight@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Tingwei Zhang <tingwei@...eaurora.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coresight: etm4x: Add support to disable trace unit power
 up

Hi Mathieu,

On 2020-05-15 20:22, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:39, Sai Prakash Ranjan
> <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.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@...eaurora.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@...eaurora.org>
>> >> Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
>> >
>> > Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Tingwei Zhang <tingwei@...eaurora.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.

>> 
>> >> ---
>> >>  .../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.

Thanks,
Sai
-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation