Re: [PATCH 2/6] ArmPkg/Drivers: Add EFI_MM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL DXE driver.

[Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:05:32PM +0530, Sughosh Ganu wrote:
> hi Leif,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 03:25:11PM +0530, Supreeth Venkatesh wrote:
> >> PI v1.5 Specification Volume 4 defines Management Mode Core Interface
> >> and defines EFI_MM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL. This protocol provides a
> >> means of communicating between drivers outside of MM and MMI
> >> handlers inside of MM.
> >>
> >> This patch implements the EFI_MM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL DXE runtime
> >> driver for AARCH64 platforms. It uses SMCs allocated from the standard
> >> SMC range defined in DEN0060A_ARM_MM_Interface_Specification.pdf
> >
> > I would prefer the document to be referred to by its official name and
> > its document number:
> > ARM Management Mode Interface Specification (ARM DEN0060A)
> >
> >> to communicate with the standalone MM environment in the secure world.
> >>
> >> This patch also adds the MM Communication driver (.inf) file to
> >> define entry point for this driver and other compile
> >> related information the driver needs.
> >>
> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> >> Signed-off-by: Achin Gupta <achin.gupta@arm.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Supreeth Venkatesh <supreeth.venkatesh@arm.com>
> >
> > Oh, and only one Signed-off-by per patch please.
> > If authorship is to be indicated, ensure that's correct in git before
> > calling format-patch.
> 
> Supreeth has moved onto some other work, hence I will be working on
> the upstreaming of these patches henceforth.

Splendid, welcome aboard.

> Will handle your comments
> on all the patches and send an updated version. Regarding the
> inclusion of a single Signed-off-By, i have a doubt. Work on these
> patches was initially done by Achin, and then Supreeth. I will be
> handling your review comments and posting the updated version. You
> have posted a comment saying that we can have only a single s-o-b in
> any given patch. In such a scenario, how can we attribute the work
> done by all the engineers for these patches. Can you please let me
> know on this. As per my understanding, other projects do allow
> multiple s-o-b's per patch. Thanks.

We do permit multiple s-o-b.
When multiple developers are working together in public, adding
non-trivial bits to a patch in flight, you can add multiple s-o-b.

What is not appropriate is to post a patch containing company-internal
details about who handled the patch before it was sent public.
The signed-off-by is a statement regarding the suitability of the
contribution - it is not attribution.
The Author field is the only attribution.

Regards,

Leif

p.s.
I presume you're taking the set over because you work for ARM - so
please communicate with the mailing list from your @arm.com account.