[PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Simon Horman]

Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
the TCM and MMU.

Found by inspection.

Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
---
 Documentation/arm/tcm.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
index b256f9783883..1dc6c39220f9 100644
--- a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
+++ b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ CPU so it is usually wise not to overlap any physical RAM with
 the TCM.
 
 The TCM memory can then be remapped to another address again using
-the MMU, but notice that the TCM if often used in situations where
+the MMU, but notice that the TCM is often used in situations where
 the MMU is turned off. To avoid confusion the current Linux
 implementation will map the TCM 1 to 1 from physical to virtual
 memory in the location specified by the kernel. Currently Linux
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Simon Horman]

Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
the TCM and MMU.

Found by inspection.

Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
---
 Documentation/arm/tcm.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
index b256f9783883..1dc6c39220f9 100644
--- a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
+++ b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ CPU so it is usually wise not to overlap any physical RAM with
 the TCM.
 
 The TCM memory can then be remapped to another address again using
-the MMU, but notice that the TCM if often used in situations where
+the MMU, but notice that the TCM is often used in situations where
 the MMU is turned off. To avoid confusion the current Linux
 implementation will map the TCM 1 to 1 from physical to virtual
 memory in the location specified by the kernel. Currently Linux
-- 
2.30.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Jonathan Corbet]

Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:

> Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
> the TCM and MMU.
>
> Found by inspection.
>
> Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>

Here too I have to ask: what does this signoff chain mean?  If two
developers were needed for a single-character typo fix, then a
Co-developed-by line is appropriate.  If you are forwarding a patch from
Louis, then a From: line to get the authorship right is indicated ... ?

>  Documentation/arm/tcm.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> index b256f9783883..1dc6c39220f9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ CPU so it is usually wise not to overlap any physical RAM with
>  the TCM.
>  
>  The TCM memory can then be remapped to another address again using
> -the MMU, but notice that the TCM if often used in situations where
> +the MMU, but notice that the TCM is often used in situations where
>  the MMU is turned off. To avoid confusion the current Linux
>  implementation will map the TCM 1 to 1 from physical to virtual

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Jonathan Corbet]

Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:

> Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
> the TCM and MMU.
>
> Found by inspection.
>
> Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>

Here too I have to ask: what does this signoff chain mean?  If two
developers were needed for a single-character typo fix, then a
Co-developed-by line is appropriate.  If you are forwarding a patch from
Louis, then a From: line to get the authorship right is indicated ... ?

>  Documentation/arm/tcm.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> index b256f9783883..1dc6c39220f9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ CPU so it is usually wise not to overlap any physical RAM with
>  the TCM.
>  
>  The TCM memory can then be remapped to another address again using
> -the MMU, but notice that the TCM if often used in situations where
> +the MMU, but notice that the TCM is often used in situations where
>  the MMU is turned off. To avoid confusion the current Linux
>  implementation will map the TCM 1 to 1 from physical to virtual

Thanks,

jon

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:01:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:
> 
> > Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
> > the TCM and MMU.
> >
> > Found by inspection.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
> 
> Here too I have to ask: what does this signoff chain mean?  If two
> developers were needed for a single-character typo fix, then a
> Co-developed-by line is appropriate.  If you are forwarding a patch from
> Louis, then a From: line to get the authorship right is indicated ... ?

Hi Jon,

The patch was created by me.

Due to internal processes a release by a colleague is provided, that is the
purpose of Louis's sign off (overkill in this case, I agree).

If Louis's sign-off is not necessary from your perspective then I'm happy
for you to drop it or for my to repost the patch without it.

> >  Documentation/arm/tcm.rst | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> > index b256f9783883..1dc6c39220f9 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ CPU so it is usually wise not to overlap any physical RAM with
> >  the TCM.
> >  
> >  The TCM memory can then be remapped to another address again using
> > -the MMU, but notice that the TCM if often used in situations where
> > +the MMU, but notice that the TCM is often used in situations where
> >  the MMU is turned off. To avoid confusion the current Linux
> >  implementation will map the TCM 1 to 1 from physical to virtual
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:01:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:
> 
> > Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
> > the TCM and MMU.
> >
> > Found by inspection.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
> 
> Here too I have to ask: what does this signoff chain mean?  If two
> developers were needed for a single-character typo fix, then a
> Co-developed-by line is appropriate.  If you are forwarding a patch from
> Louis, then a From: line to get the authorship right is indicated ... ?

Hi Jon,

The patch was created by me.

Due to internal processes a release by a colleague is provided, that is the
purpose of Louis's sign off (overkill in this case, I agree).

If Louis's sign-off is not necessary from your perspective then I'm happy
for you to drop it or for my to repost the patch without it.

> >  Documentation/arm/tcm.rst | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> > index b256f9783883..1dc6c39220f9 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/arm/tcm.rst
> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ CPU so it is usually wise not to overlap any physical RAM with
> >  the TCM.
> >  
> >  The TCM memory can then be remapped to another address again using
> > -the MMU, but notice that the TCM if often used in situations where
> > +the MMU, but notice that the TCM is often used in situations where
> >  the MMU is turned off. To avoid confusion the current Linux
> >  implementation will map the TCM 1 to 1 from physical to virtual
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Jonathan Corbet]

Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:01:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
>> > the TCM and MMU.
>> >
>> > Found by inspection.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
>> 
>> Here too I have to ask: what does this signoff chain mean?  If two
>> developers were needed for a single-character typo fix, then a
>> Co-developed-by line is appropriate.  If you are forwarding a patch from
>> Louis, then a From: line to get the authorship right is indicated ... ?
>
> The patch was created by me.
>
> Due to internal processes a release by a colleague is provided, that is the
> purpose of Louis's sign off (overkill in this case, I agree).
>
> If Louis's sign-off is not necessary from your perspective then I'm happy
> for you to drop it or for my to repost the patch without it.

So are you perhaps using it like a Reviewed-by?  If so, that's the tag
that should be used.  But Signed-off-by has a well-defined meaning
described by the DCO, and "release by a colleague" isn't in there, so
I think that tag is not appropriate in this patch.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Jonathan Corbet]

Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:01:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
>> > the TCM and MMU.
>> >
>> > Found by inspection.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
>> 
>> Here too I have to ask: what does this signoff chain mean?  If two
>> developers were needed for a single-character typo fix, then a
>> Co-developed-by line is appropriate.  If you are forwarding a patch from
>> Louis, then a From: line to get the authorship right is indicated ... ?
>
> The patch was created by me.
>
> Due to internal processes a release by a colleague is provided, that is the
> purpose of Louis's sign off (overkill in this case, I agree).
>
> If Louis's sign-off is not necessary from your perspective then I'm happy
> for you to drop it or for my to repost the patch without it.

So are you perhaps using it like a Reviewed-by?  If so, that's the tag
that should be used.  But Signed-off-by has a well-defined meaning
described by the DCO, and "release by a colleague" isn't in there, so
I think that tag is not appropriate in this patch.

Thanks,

jon

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 11:27:51AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:01:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> >> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
> >> > the TCM and MMU.
> >> >
> >> > Found by inspection.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
> >> 
> >> Here too I have to ask: what does this signoff chain mean?  If two
> >> developers were needed for a single-character typo fix, then a
> >> Co-developed-by line is appropriate.  If you are forwarding a patch from
> >> Louis, then a From: line to get the authorship right is indicated ... ?
> >
> > The patch was created by me.
> >
> > Due to internal processes a release by a colleague is provided, that is the
> > purpose of Louis's sign off (overkill in this case, I agree).
> >
> > If Louis's sign-off is not necessary from your perspective then I'm happy
> > for you to drop it or for my to repost the patch without it.
> 
> So are you perhaps using it like a Reviewed-by?  If so, that's the tag
> that should be used.  But Signed-off-by has a well-defined meaning
> described by the DCO, and "release by a colleague" isn't in there, so
> I think that tag is not appropriate in this patch.

Thanks Jon,

I'll post a v2 without the tag in question.

Kind regards,
Simon

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 11:27:51AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:01:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> >> Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Correct a typo in the description of interaction between
> >> > the TCM and MMU.
> >> >
> >> > Found by inspection.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
> >> 
> >> Here too I have to ask: what does this signoff chain mean?  If two
> >> developers were needed for a single-character typo fix, then a
> >> Co-developed-by line is appropriate.  If you are forwarding a patch from
> >> Louis, then a From: line to get the authorship right is indicated ... ?
> >
> > The patch was created by me.
> >
> > Due to internal processes a release by a colleague is provided, that is the
> > purpose of Louis's sign off (overkill in this case, I agree).
> >
> > If Louis's sign-off is not necessary from your perspective then I'm happy
> > for you to drop it or for my to repost the patch without it.
> 
> So are you perhaps using it like a Reviewed-by?  If so, that's the tag
> that should be used.  But Signed-off-by has a well-defined meaning
> described by the DCO, and "release by a colleague" isn't in there, so
> I think that tag is not appropriate in this patch.

Thanks Jon,

I'll post a v2 without the tag in question.

Kind regards,
Simon

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Jonathan Corbet]

Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:

> Thanks Jon,
>
> I'll post a v2 without the tag in question.

Thanks, appreciated.  Sorry to be obnoxious about it.

jon

Re: [PATCH] docs: arm: tcm: Fix typo in description of TCM and MMU usage

[Jonathan Corbet]

Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com> writes:

> Thanks Jon,
>
> I'll post a v2 without the tag in question.

Thanks, appreciated.  Sorry to be obnoxious about it.

jon

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel