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

[Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>]

On 2020-05-15 21:28, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
> 
> On 2020-05-15 21:21, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:37:13PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>> Hi Mathieu,
>>> 
>>> On 2020-05-15 20:22, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:39, Sai Prakash Ranjan
>>> > <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.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@codeaurora.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@codeaurora.org>
>>> > > >> Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
>>> > > >> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Co-developed-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
>>> > > > Signed-off-by: Tingwei Zhang <tingwei@codeaurora.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.
>> 
>> Ah yes, glad to see that got clarified.  You can ignore my 
>> recommendation on
>> that snippet.
>> 
>>> 
>>> > >
>>> > > >> ---
>>> > > >>  .../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.
>> 
>> The patch has another warning for a line over 80 characters, that 
>> should have
>> been fixed before sending.  Putting DT changes in a separate patch is 
>> always
>> better for the DT people.  They review tons of patches and making 
>> their life
>> easier is always a good thing.
>> 
> 
> Ok, I will fix this and resend. I did not want to change it in case if
> it affects
> readability since most maintainers prefer to ignore this 80 characters
> warning if
> it affects readability. I will keep this in mind for future patches as 
> well.
> 

Now fixed all checkpatch warnings and addressed other review comments.
Posted v3 - https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/1242572/

Thanks,
Sai

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