| Message ID | 20220720060016.1646317-4-appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drivers: misc: Add support for TMR Manager and Inject IPs | expand |
On 20/07/2022 08:00, Appana Durga Kedareswara rao wrote: > From: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> > > The Triple Modular Redundancy(TMR) Inject core provides functional fault > injection by changing selected MicroBlaze instructions, which provides the > possibility to verify that the TMR subsystem error detection and fault > recovery logic is working properly. > > Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@amd.com> > Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> Keep only one SoB. > --- Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Best regards, Krzysztof
On 7/20/22 08:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/07/2022 08:00, Appana Durga Kedareswara rao wrote: >> From: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> >> >> The Triple Modular Redundancy(TMR) Inject core provides functional fault >> injection by changing selected MicroBlaze instructions, which provides the >> possibility to verify that the TMR subsystem error detection and fault >> recovery logic is working properly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@amd.com> >> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> > > Keep only one SoB. nit: First of all it is from xilinx.com that's why xilinx.com should be the first. Just for my understanding about guidance here. Code was developed by Xilinx before acquisition with AMD. And because it was picked from vendor tree origin xilinx.com was there to keep origin author there. And upstreaming is done by new company. I can't see nothing wrong on keeping both emails there but that's why my opinion. Definitely not a problem to remove one of them but wanted to make sure that we do it properly for all our submissions. Thanks, Michal
On 20/07/2022 10:26, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 7/20/22 08:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/07/2022 08:00, Appana Durga Kedareswara rao wrote: >>> From: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> >>> >>> The Triple Modular Redundancy(TMR) Inject core provides functional fault >>> injection by changing selected MicroBlaze instructions, which provides the >>> possibility to verify that the TMR subsystem error detection and fault >>> recovery logic is working properly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@amd.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> >> >> Keep only one SoB. > > nit: First of all it is from xilinx.com that's why xilinx.com should be the first. > > Just for my understanding about guidance here. > Code was developed by Xilinx before acquisition with AMD. And because it was > picked from vendor tree origin xilinx.com was there to keep origin author there. > And upstreaming is done by new company. I can't see nothing wrong on keeping > both emails there but that's why my opinion. Definitely not a problem to remove > one of them but wanted to make sure that we do it properly for all our submissions. It's the same person. No need for two SoBs from the same person. Since AMD acquired Xilinx, it holds all copyrights thus @amd.com person does not have to include previous SoB. He/She/They has the permission from employer to submit it. The second SoB is just redundant - brings no actual information. Otherwise please tell me which piece of DCO the additional SoB adds/solves (comparing to single SoB - @amd.com)? Similarly when you change jobs while resending your patch - you do not add new SoB but just keep SoB from @previous-company.com. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 7/20/22 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/07/2022 10:26, Michal Simek wrote: >> >> >> On 7/20/22 08:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 20/07/2022 08:00, Appana Durga Kedareswara rao wrote: >>>> From: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> >>>> >>>> The Triple Modular Redundancy(TMR) Inject core provides functional fault >>>> injection by changing selected MicroBlaze instructions, which provides the >>>> possibility to verify that the TMR subsystem error detection and fault >>>> recovery logic is working properly. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@amd.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> >>> >>> Keep only one SoB. >> >> nit: First of all it is from xilinx.com that's why xilinx.com should be the first. >> >> Just for my understanding about guidance here. >> Code was developed by Xilinx before acquisition with AMD. And because it was >> picked from vendor tree origin xilinx.com was there to keep origin author there. >> And upstreaming is done by new company. I can't see nothing wrong on keeping >> both emails there but that's why my opinion. Definitely not a problem to remove >> one of them but wanted to make sure that we do it properly for all our submissions. > > It's the same person. No need for two SoBs from the same person. Since > AMD acquired Xilinx, it holds all copyrights thus @amd.com person does > not have to include previous SoB. He/She/They has the permission from > employer to submit it. The second SoB is just redundant - brings no > actual information. Otherwise please tell me which piece of DCO the > additional SoB adds/solves (comparing to single SoB - @amd.com)? ok. It means enough to choose one now. I am aware about some IT issues in progress that's why that patches can come from xilinx.com or amd.com for some time time. Kedar: please just choose one. > Similarly when you change jobs while resending your patch - you do not > add new SoB but just keep SoB from @previous-company.com. IMHO That would be more questionable when you create changes in origin series and new employer pays you to do the work. If it is 3rd party company picking series where upstreaming is not finished you will expect that 3rd party will add their sob lines there too. Thanks, Michal
On 20/07/2022 14:09, Michal Simek wrote: >> Similarly when you change jobs while resending your patch - you do not >> add new SoB but just keep SoB from @previous-company.com. > > IMHO That would be more questionable when you create changes in origin series > and new employer pays you to do the work. True, when changes happen in between, it gets tricky. > If it is 3rd party company picking series where upstreaming is not finished you > will expect that 3rd party will add their sob lines there too. Of course, because this is different person. The SoB comes always from a person, although he might represent company. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 7/20/22 14:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/07/2022 14:09, Michal Simek wrote: >>> Similarly when you change jobs while resending your patch - you do not >>> add new SoB but just keep SoB from @previous-company.com. >> >> IMHO That would be more questionable when you create changes in origin series >> and new employer pays you to do the work. > > True, when changes happen in between, it gets tricky. > >> If it is 3rd party company picking series where upstreaming is not finished you >> will expect that 3rd party will add their sob lines there too. > > Of course, because this is different person. The SoB comes always from a > person, although he might represent company. Good chat. Cheers, Michal
Hi, Thanks for the review Krzysztof On 20/07/22 5:39 pm, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 7/20/22 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/07/2022 10:26, Michal Simek wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/20/22 08:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 20/07/2022 08:00, Appana Durga Kedareswara rao wrote: >>>>> From: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> >>>>> >>>>> The Triple Modular Redundancy(TMR) Inject core provides functional >>>>> fault >>>>> injection by changing selected MicroBlaze instructions, which >>>>> provides the >>>>> possibility to verify that the TMR subsystem error detection and fault >>>>> recovery logic is working properly. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao >>>>> <appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@amd.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao >>>>> <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> >>>> >>>> Keep only one SoB. Surce Krzysztof will take care of it next patch series onwards. >>> >>> nit: First of all it is from xilinx.com that's why xilinx.com should >>> be the first. >>> >>> Just for my understanding about guidance here. >>> Code was developed by Xilinx before acquisition with AMD. And because >>> it was >>> picked from vendor tree origin xilinx.com was there to keep origin >>> author there. >>> And upstreaming is done by new company. I can't see nothing wrong on >>> keeping >>> both emails there but that's why my opinion. Definitely not a problem >>> to remove >>> one of them but wanted to make sure that we do it properly for all >>> our submissions. >> >> It's the same person. No need for two SoBs from the same person. Since >> AMD acquired Xilinx, it holds all copyrights thus @amd.com person does >> not have to include previous SoB. He/She/They has the permission from >> employer to submit it. The second SoB is just redundant - brings no >> actual information. Otherwise please tell me which piece of DCO the >> additional SoB adds/solves (comparing to single SoB - @amd.com)? > > ok. It means enough to choose one now. I am aware about some IT issues > in progress that's why that patches can come from xilinx.com or amd.com > for some time time. > Kedar: please just choose one. > Sure Michal Regards, Kedar. > >> Similarly when you change jobs while resending your patch - you do not >> add new SoB but just keep SoB from @previous-company.com. > > IMHO That would be more questionable when you create changes in origin > series and new employer pays you to do the work. > > If it is 3rd party company picking series where upstreaming is not > finished you will expect that 3rd party will add their sob lines there too. > > Thanks, > Michal
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/xlnx,tmr-inject.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/xlnx,tmr-inject.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..cb14ea73fb4c --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/xlnx,tmr-inject.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/misc/xlnx,tmr-inject.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: Xilinx Triple Modular Redundancy(TMR) Inject IP + +maintainers: + - Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com> + +description: | + The Triple Modular Redundancy(TMR) Inject core provides functional fault + injection by changing selected MicroBlaze instructions, which provides the + possibility to verify that the TMR subsystem error detection and fault + recovery logic is working properly. + +properties: + compatible: + enum: + - xlnx,tmr-inject-1.0 + + reg: + maxItems: 1 + + xlnx,magic: + minimum: 0 + maximum: 255 + description: | + Magic number, When configured it allows the controller to perform + recovery. + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 + +required: + - compatible + - reg + - xlnx,magic + +additionalProperties: false + +examples: + - | + fault-inject@44a30000 { + compatible = "xlnx,tmr-inject-1.0"; + reg = <0x44a10000 0x10000>; + xlnx,magic = <0x46>; + };