Re: [PATCH v1] rtc: snvs: Allow a time difference on clock register read

[Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>]

On 04/11/2022 09:45:01+0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:27:56PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 03/11/2022 12:13:09+0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> > > From: Stefan Eichenberger <stefan.eichenberger@toradex.com>
> > > 
> > > On an iMX6ULL the following message appears when a wakealarm is set:
> > > 
> > > echo 0 > /sys/class/rtc/rtc1/wakealarm
> > > rtc rtc1: Timeout trying to get valid LPSRT Counter read
> > > 
> > > This does not always happen but is reproducible quite often (7 out of 10
> > > times). The problem appears because the iMX6ULL is not able to read the
> > > registers within one 32kHz clock cycle which is the base clock of the
> > > RTC. Therefore, this patch allows a difference of up to 320 cycles
> > > (10ms). 10ms was chosen to be big enough even on systems with less cpu
> > > power (e.g. iMX6ULL). According to the reference manual a difference is
> > > fine:
> > > - If the two consecutive reads are similar, the value is correct.
> > > The values have to be similar, not equal.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: cd7f3a249dbe ("rtc: snvs: Add timeouts to avoid kernel lockups")
> > > Reviewed-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@toradex.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Eichenberger <stefan.eichenberger@toradex.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@toradex.com>
> > 
> > Also, your SoB needs to match the sender address.
> 
> I'll fix it.
> 
> However there is something that I do not fully understand and I thought
> it was not strictly required when forwarding patches like I just did.
> 
> How do you handle the very common case in which the patch author is the
> corporate email address, but the email sender is a private one?
> 
> Normally you have:
>  - sender me@personal.example.com
>  - first line of the email From: me@company.example.com
>  - SoB: me@company.example.com
> 
> with that the email sender does not match the last sob, but this is very
> common, see for example https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220705085825.21255-1-max.oss.09@gmail.com/
> 
> Should we have an additional
>  - sob me@personal.example.com
> 
> Therefore having 2 sob by the same individual, but with 2 different email
> addresses?

I would simply drop the company one if they are not able to provide you
with a working email.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com