Re: [Patch v5 2/4] memory: tegra: Add MC error logging on tegra186 onward

Ashish Mhetre
2022-03-30T10:35:09Z

On 3/30/2022 3:49 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> 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@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>>>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.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.

Got it, thanks for the explanation. I'll remove tag from next version.