[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 4/4] ipq40xx: add support for secondary cores bringup
chunkeey at gmail.com
Fri May 17 13:18:20 PDT 2019
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 9:35:28 PM CEST Petr Štetiar wrote:
> Павел <be.dissent at gmail.com> [2019-05-15 22:14:41]:
> > Not a problem, actually, but I've been suggested to squash them :)
> > https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/2043#issuecomment-491581897
> ok, thanks for the background, but still, squashing doesn't mean changing
> authorship and Christian has probably also warned you beforehand :-)
Did it occure to anybody to look at these two patches for a second
before writing long essays about that's right and not? Because Patch
"one" is incomplete and the second patch is clearly doing a "FIXUP"
for the first. That's why they should be squashed. I do think, you'll
be just ignored if you try to post these as-is with your signed-off
on the linux-msm-arm. But then, why not give it a shot, this would
make for some good laughs if it went through as-is.
But from what I noticed, nobody did any of the requested perf
testing. These are absolutely necessary because the switch
from kpss-v1 to kpss-v2 clearly did have an big impact on the
performance. So let's not break anything because of a possible
incomplete patch (that might or might not require "ROM" support
that might or might not be present on all devices).
> "(Note: In some of the patches the "Author" in the commits is dissent1! So
> watch out before sending them off)"
> > Shouldn't the dev send the patch directly to me in order to be able to post
> > it on his behalf, like openwrt submitting patches guideline describes?
> From the kernel docs:
> "The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my
> knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source license and I have the
> right under that license to submit that work with modifications, whether
> created in whole or in part by me, under the same open source license (unless
> I am permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated in the file;"
> so in short, kernel is covered by GPLv2 which allows you to do this if you
> retain the authorship.
The other aspect of this is that you can also "offload" some of the blame
with retaining the original authorship if the patch goes sour. Because as
you have seen even the benight 32KHz (32000Hz vs 32768Hz) non-issue
(since it gets "rounded down" by the qcom-clk to 32000 see kernel debug)
can be a hot topic with conflicting "facts". Simply because we don't know
how the clock count is attained. If it's an external osc then it's probably
the "round" 32768 Hz, but if this sleep clock is generated from the 48 MHz
Osc reference (which we know is there, because these osc are big enough to
be spotted by looking at the PCB) then a "odd" 32000Hz is possible.
(That said, the highres timer fix seems to be definitely a winner.
I'm glad that you spotted it).
More information about the openwrt-devel