Hi Simon,
On 9/25/23 16:01, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 07:38, Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com> wrote:
On 9/25/23 15:10, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 00:06, Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com> wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 9/23/23 20:13, Simon Glass wrote:
Current alignment which is using 16 bytes is not correct in connection to
trace_clocks description and it's length.
That's why use start_addr variable and record proper size based on used
entries.
Fixes: be16fc81b2ed ("trace: Update proftool to use new binary format").
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v2:
- s/start_addr/start_ofs/g'
tools/proftool.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Applied to u-boot-dm, thanks!
FYI: I have merged it to my tree and already sent pull request to Tom.
Without it I couldn't pass CI loop to get all reviewed features in.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/ab72c480-e9f8-416e-adf5-726f7d40c...@amd.com/
Ah OK, well that's fine. It was in my patchwork queue still, which
suggests that the patches were not set to 'applied'?
I am not using patchwork. But I expect my reply to cover letter was recorded
there.
Probably. If you reply to each patch, it shows up in the patch, but
the cover letter is hidden somewhere else.
I have never started to like patchwork. I installed that client long time ago, I
also have account for quite a long time.
If you are not using patchwork, how come you are a custodian? Is
someone else dealing with patchwork for you?
Not really. I am just keep track on it via emails.
DT folks did wire CI loop on every patch which they get. I am not aware about
any feature like this which would bring me something. That's why I am
considering patchwork as unneeded layer. And I also don't think that I have read
anywhere that all custodians should be using patchwork.
Thanks,
Michal
