[PATCH] drm/rockchip: Convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume()

[jrdr.linux@gmail.com (Souptick Joarder)]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2018, 14:43:47 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder:
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>> > Hi Souptick,
>> >
>> > Am Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018, 22:34:30 CEST schrieb Souptick Joarder:
>> >> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume() to use
>> >> drm_mode_config_helper_suspend/resume().
>> >>
>> >> With this conversion, rockchip_drm_fb_resume() and
>> >> rockchip_drm_fb_suspend() will not be used anymore.
>> >> Both of these functions can be removed.
>> >>
>> >> Also, in struct rockchip_drm_private state will not be
>> >> used anymore. So this can be removed forever.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ajit Negi <ajitn.linux@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > the patch itself looks great, just a simple bookkeeping question.
>> >
>> > What role did Ajit play in creating the patch? If I remember correctly
>> > it is meant to be
>> > - 1st Signed-off: Patch-Author
>> > - 2nd Signed-off: E-Mail sender + patch possibly patch changes
>> > (optional of course if the same)
>> >
>> > So was this meant to be a Reviewed-by from Ajit?
>>
>> We both are working together for these patches to
>> convert drm_atomic_helper_suspend/resume().
>> That's the reason to add his name in 2nd Signed-off
>> in all similar patches.
>>
>> Is it a incorrect way to put 2nd Signed-off here ?
>
> Thanks for the clarification and the interesting question :-)
>
> I've just read through Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> and it seems there is an "official" way to show that relationship, via a
> tag named "Co-Developed-by:" described under number 12.
>
> So I guess we could just adapt the patch accordingly, if that is ok with
> both of you (i.e. I can change this when applying, so no need to resend).

We are ok with it :-)

>
>
> Heiko
>
>