Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates
 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB04.amd.com; pr=C
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:46:28 +0200
From:   Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
CC:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        "Terry Bowman" <terry.bowman@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] cxl/acpi: Extract component registers of
 restricted hosts from RCRB
Message-ID: <Y0/VhNAzmZOcUT01@rric.localdomain>
References: <20221018132341.76259-1-rrichter@amd.com>
 <20221018132341.76259-7-rrichter@amd.com>
 <CAJZ5v0iweDu6imi_P3eRTTk0Xpzv-swB05fYxmTMAHAjCN2tiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y07wfi7XSxHWr7LD@rric.localdomain>
 <CAJZ5v0gtbzD9H9OEWS1X5OnFCntFTAnNbxwrU3FpZbnR5rQ6fQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gtbzD9H9OEWS1X5OnFCntFTAnNbxwrU3FpZbnR5rQ6fQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Oct 2022 10:46:33.8358
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 263a91f0-0e10-46e4-6196-08dab1bf30a4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB04.amd.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT017.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: IA0PR12MB7649
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
        autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 18.10.22 20:57:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 8:42 PM Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 18.10.22 15:31:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 3:24 PM Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A downstream port must be connected to a component register block.
> > > > For restricted hosts the base address is determined from the RCRB. The
> > > > RCRB is provided by the host's CEDT CHBS entry. Rework CEDT parser to
> > > > get the RCRB and add code to extract the component register block from
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > RCRB's BAR[0..1] point to the component block containing CXL subsystem
> > > > component registers. MEMBAR extraction follows the PCI base spec here,
> > > > esp. 64 bit extraction and memory range alignment (6.0, 7.5.1.2.1).
> > > >
> > > > Note: Right now the component register block is used for HDM decoder
> > > > capability only which is optional for RCDs. If unsupported by the RCD,
> > > > the HDM init will fail. It is future work to bypass it in this case.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@amd.com>
> > >
> > > What does this S-o-B mean?  If this person is your co-developer, you
> > > need to add a Co-developed-by tag to clarify that.
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>
> >
> > I picked up an early patch and modified it significantly, so I just
> > left the S-o-B.
> 
> In that case the right thing to do is to mention the original author
> in the changelog instead of retaining the S-o-b.
> 
> > I could change this to a Co-developed-by tag.
> 
> Co-developed-by should be used in addition to and not instead of S-o-b
> when one of the authors is sending a patch.  However, all of the
> authors need to be familiar with the patch in the form in which it is
> being sent then.
> 
> > IMO, the S-o-B is ok, but could be wrong here.
> 
> It isn't, at least not without a Co-developed-by tag.
> 
> There are 3 cases in which S-o-b is OK AFAICS:
> 
> 1. When it matches the From: address.
> 2. When there is a matching Co-developed-by.
> 3. When maintainers pick up patches and add their own S-o-b.
> 
> This case is none of the above.

Will add a Co-developed-by tag in my next version. Thanks for pointing
that out.

-Robert