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

Heiko Stuebner
2018-08-01T13:32:50Z

Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2018, 15:14:24 CEST schrieb 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 :-)

applied to drm-misc-next with the second signed-off changed to
co-developed-by.

Thanks for that nice cleanup.