lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 3/4] drivers: edac: Add EDAC driver support for QCOM SoCs
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:13 PM <vnkgutta@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-10 10:23, Evan Green wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:34 PM Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta
> > <vnkgutta@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Channagoud Kadabi <ckadabi@codeaurora.org>
> >>
> >> Add error reporting driver for SBEs and DBEs. As of now, this driver
> >> supports erp for Last Level Cache Controller (LLCC). This driver takes
> >> care of dumping registers and adding config options to enable and
> >> disable panic when the errors happen in cache.
> >>
> >> Co-developed-by: Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta
> >> <vnkgutta@codeaurora.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta <vnkgutta@codeaurora.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Channagoud Kadabi <ckadabi@codeaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >> MAINTAINERS | 7 +
> >> drivers/edac/Kconfig | 28 +++
> >> drivers/edac/Makefile | 1 +
> >> drivers/edac/qcom_edac.c | 507
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 4 files changed, 543 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100644 drivers/edac/qcom_edac.c
> >>
> > ...
> >> diff --git a/drivers/edac/qcom_edac.c b/drivers/edac/qcom_edac.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..cf3e2b0
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/drivers/edac/qcom_edac.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >> +/*
> >> + * Copyright (c) 2018, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> +#include <linux/edac.h>
> >> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> >> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >> +#include <linux/smp.h>
> >> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> >> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >> +#include <linux/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.h>
> >
> > Please alphabetize these includes, and remove any unneeded ones.
> Ok, I'll update it in the next version. I didn't know that it's
> mandatory to have in alphabetic order.
> Is it recommended or a strict rule that we have includes in alphabetize
> order?

You know, I'm not actually sure if it's a strict rule. I'm still
learning many of the conventions here myself. But it seems to get
commented on consistently by reviewers, so it's in my bag of "things I
look out for".

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-11 02:15    [W:0.031 / U:13.732 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site