Hi Simon,
On 9/25/23 16:01, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 07:38, Michal Simek michal.simek@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.simek@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.simek@amd.com Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@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-adf5-726f7d40c4f5@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