[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2ba661b5-a59b-89f4-7ad7-5eee4da4ce96@collabora.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 13:19:25 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
To: Ashish Mhetre <amhetre@...dia.com>,
krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
thierry.reding@...il.com, digetx@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Cc: vdumpa@...dia.com, Snikam@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 2/4] memory: tegra: Add MC error logging on tegra186
onward
On 3/30/22 12:03, Ashish Mhetre wrote:
>
>
> On 3/30/2022 5:36 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/22 12:25, Ashish Mhetre wrote:
>>> Add new function 'get_int_channel' in tegra_mc_soc struture which is
>>> implemented by tegra SOCs which support multiple MC channels. This
>>> function returns the channel which should be used to get the information
>>> of interrupts.
>>> Remove static from tegra30_mc_handle_irq and use it as interrupt handler
>>> for MC interrupts on tegra186, tegra194 and tegra234 to log the errors.
>>> Add error specific MC status and address register bits and use them on
>>> tegra186, tegra194 and tegra234.
>>> Add error logging for generalized carveout interrupt on tegra186,
>>> tegra194
>>> and tegra234.
>>> Add error logging for route sanity interrupt on tegra194 an tegra234.
>>> Add register for higher bits of error address which is available on
>>> tegra194 and tegra234.
>>> Add a boolean variable 'has_addr_hi_reg' in tegra_mc_soc struture which
>>> will be true if soc has register for higher bits of memory controller
>>> error address. Set it true for tegra194 and tegra234.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ashish Mhetre <amhetre@...dia.com>
>>
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>>
>> Reported what? You should add this tag only if patch addresses reported
>> problem. This patch doesn't address anything, hence the tag is
>> inappropriate, you should remove it.
>
> Okay, smatch warning was reported on v4 of this patch which is fixed in
> v5. Then I understand that we don't need to add Reported-by if we fix
> bug in subsequent versions, right?
Right, if the report was made to the in-progress patch, then you
shouldn't add the tag.
If report was made to the patch that was already merged, then you should
create a new patch that fixes the reported problem and add the
reported-by to this patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists