From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784ACC433DF for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5120320767 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598355042; bh=hS8MOXkGn7JYwFlDKqfpgI96hhlOO6z5RGuYqJxyWNk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=r2d2GS3lP8zVkGFbMvh+kYcuMrZkSqinbajTRnTSZk032aKjnriAzRfcBNa98IBni RacuBI2NQLeGON+XwAxEBZ1eqPSSXNDgrgxRnJpSL7k+WlQUtHvNYe2lYQSt/wUrgP XUOj7mJ+J0b+aZzDmROXP+QzKLiXfaT7N4TXJdzI= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729985AbgHYLak (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 07:30:40 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:43858 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729710AbgHYLai (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 07:30:38 -0400 Received: from coco.lan (ip5f5ad5a4.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [95.90.213.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B53082068E; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598355037; bh=hS8MOXkGn7JYwFlDKqfpgI96hhlOO6z5RGuYqJxyWNk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vjYUYXjEaXVD3eAv3vZmxrvIuLgKkLKqMeS9kLfzQ69qD0P0HbZowGUT/hmAmwffm yhiHRysfyy1aN6khI/k+KqtD8yKFr0XivtzoBQzJmSmoZhDkN4wwHZH+fXlz9L07Pt MOWyOw/24QeMx5Wugndtf9E49WkpaoSdesV/9YFE= Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:30:25 +0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Dave Airlie Cc: Laurent Pinchart , Neil Armstrong , David Airlie , Wanchun Zheng , linuxarm@huawei.com, dri-devel , Andrzej Hajda , Sam Ravnborg , driverdevel , Daniel Borkmann , John Fastabend , Xiubin Zhang , Wei Xu , Xinliang Liu , Xinwei Kong , Tomi Valkeinen , Bogdan Togorean , Jakub Kicinski , Laurentiu Palcu , linux-media , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Liwei Cai , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Chen Feng , Alexei Starovoitov , "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" , Rob Herring , mauro.chehab@huawei.com, Rob Clark , linux-arm-kernel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , lkml , Liuyao An , Network Development , Rongrong Zou , BPF Mailing List , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/49] DRM driver for Hikey 970 Message-ID: <20200825133025.13f047f0@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20200819152120.GA106437@ravnborg.org> <20200819153045.GA18469@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20200820090326.3f400a15@coco.lan> <20200820100205.GA5962@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.6 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:29:29 +1000 Dave Airlie escreveu: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 20:02, Laurent Pinchart > wrote: > > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:03:26AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: = =20 > > > Em Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:52:06 -0700 John Stultz escreveu: =20 > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:31 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote: =20 > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:21:20PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: =20 > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 01:45:28PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab= wrote: =20 > > > > > > > This patch series port the out-of-tree driver for Hikey 970 (= which > > > > > > > should also support Hikey 960) from the official 96boards tre= e: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/96boards-hikey/linux/tree/hikey970-v4.9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on his history, this driver seems to be originally writ= ten > > > > > > > for Kernel 4.4, and was later ported to Kernel 4.9. The origi= nal > > > > > > > driver used to depend on ION (from Kernel 4.4) and had its own > > > > > > > implementation for FB dev API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I need to preserve the original history (with has patches = from > > > > > > > both HiSilicon and from Linaro), I'm starting from the origi= nal > > > > > > > patch applied there. The remaining patches are incremental, > > > > > > > and port this driver to work with upstream Kernel. > > > > > > > =20 > > > > ... =20 > > > > > > > - Due to legal reasons, I need to preserve the authorship of > > > > > > > each one responsbile for each patch. So, I need to start fr= om > > > > > > > the original patch from Kernel 4.4; =20 > > > > ... =20 > > > > > > I do acknowledge you need to preserve history and all - > > > > > > but this patchset is not easy to review. =20 > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need to preserve history ? Adding relevant Signed-off-b= y and > > > > > Co-developed-by should be enough, shouldn't it ? Having a public = branch > > > > > that contains the history is useful if anyone is interested, but = I don't > > > > > think it's required in mainline. =20 > > > > > > > > Yea. I concur with Laurent here. I'm not sure what legal reasoning = you > > > > have on this but preserving the "absolute" history here is actively > > > > detrimental for review and understanding of the patch set. > > > > > > > > Preserving Authorship, Signed-off-by lines and adding Co-developed-= by > > > > lines should be sufficient to provide both atribution credit and DCO > > > > history. =20 > > > > > > I'm not convinced that, from legal standpoint, folding things would > > > be enough. See, there are at least 3 legal systems involved here > > > among the different patch authors: > > > > > > - civil law; > > > - common law; > > > - customary law + common law. > > > > > > Merging stuff altogether from different law systems can be problemati= c, > > > and trying to discuss this with experienced IP property lawyers will > > > for sure take a lot of time and efforts. I also bet that different > > > lawyers will have different opinions, because laws are subject to > > > interpretation. With that matter I'm not aware of any court rules > > > with regards to folded patches. So, it sounds to me that folding > > > patches is something that has yet to be proofed in courts around > > > the globe. > > > > > > At least for US legal system, it sounds that the Country of > > > origin of a patch is relevant, as they have a concept of > > > "national technology" that can be subject to export regulations. > > > > > > From my side, I really prefer to play safe and stay out of any such > > > legal discussions. =20 > > > > Let's be serious for a moment. If you think there are legal issues in > > taking GPL-v2.0-only patches and squashing them while retaining > > authorship information through tags, the Linux kernel if *full* of that. > > You also routinely modify patches that you commit to the media subsystem > > to fix "small issues". > > > > The country of origin argument makes no sense either, the kernel code > > base if full of code coming from pretty much all country on the planet. > > > > Keeping the patches separate make this hard to review. Please squash > > them. =20 >=20 > I'm inclined to agree with Laurent here. >=20 > Patches submitted as GPL-v2 with DCO lines and author names/companies > should be fine to be squashed and rearranged, > as long as the DCO and Authorship is kept somewhere in the new patch > that is applied. >=20 > Review is more important here. Sorry, but I can't agree that review is more important than to be able to properly indicate copyrights in a valid way at the legal systems that it would apply ;-) In any case, there's an easy way to make the code easy to review: I can write the patches against staging (where it is OK to submit preserving the history) and then add a final patch moving it out of staging. You can then just review the last patch, as it will contain the entire code on it. Another alternative, as I'm already doing with Sam, is for me to submit the folded code as a reply to 00/xx. You can then just=20 review the final code, without concerning about how the code reached there. =46rom review point of the view, this will be the same as reviewing a folded patch, but, from legal standpoint, the entire copyright chain will be preserved. Thanks, Mauro From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286B4C433E1 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F033F2075F for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="vjYUYXjE" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F033F2075F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6881522D24; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xke5zIB6j-HV; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C14204A6; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C3C1BF48D for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847F986918 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ixJSJi1hWV56 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B095886637 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from coco.lan (ip5f5ad5a4.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [95.90.213.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B53082068E; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598355037; bh=hS8MOXkGn7JYwFlDKqfpgI96hhlOO6z5RGuYqJxyWNk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vjYUYXjEaXVD3eAv3vZmxrvIuLgKkLKqMeS9kLfzQ69qD0P0HbZowGUT/hmAmwffm yhiHRysfyy1aN6khI/k+KqtD8yKFr0XivtzoBQzJmSmoZhDkN4wwHZH+fXlz9L07Pt MOWyOw/24QeMx5Wugndtf9E49WkpaoSdesV/9YFE= Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:30:25 +0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Dave Airlie Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/49] DRM driver for Hikey 970 Message-ID: <20200825133025.13f047f0@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20200819152120.GA106437@ravnborg.org> <20200819153045.GA18469@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20200820090326.3f400a15@coco.lan> <20200820100205.GA5962@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.6 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Driver Project Developer List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Neil Armstrong , David Airlie , Wanchun Zheng , linuxarm@huawei.com, dri-devel , Andrzej Hajda , Laurent Pinchart , Sam Ravnborg , driverdevel , Daniel Borkmann , John Fastabend , Xiubin Zhang , Wei Xu , Xinliang Liu , Xinwei Kong , Tomi Valkeinen , Bogdan Togorean , Jakub Kicinski , Laurentiu Palcu , linux-media , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Liwei Cai , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Chen Feng , Alexei Starovoitov , "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" , Rob Herring , mauro.chehab@huawei.com, Rob Clark , linux-arm-kernel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , lkml , Liuyao An , Network Development , Rongrong Zou , BPF Mailing List , "David S. Miller" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" Em Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:29:29 +1000 Dave Airlie escreveu: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 20:02, Laurent Pinchart > wrote: > > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:03:26AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Em Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:52:06 -0700 John Stultz escreveu: > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:31 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:21:20PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 01:45:28PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > > > This patch series port the out-of-tree driver for Hikey 970 (which > > > > > > > should also support Hikey 960) from the official 96boards tree: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/96boards-hikey/linux/tree/hikey970-v4.9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on his history, this driver seems to be originally written > > > > > > > for Kernel 4.4, and was later ported to Kernel 4.9. The original > > > > > > > driver used to depend on ION (from Kernel 4.4) and had its own > > > > > > > implementation for FB dev API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I need to preserve the original history (with has patches from > > > > > > > both HiSilicon and from Linaro), I'm starting from the original > > > > > > > patch applied there. The remaining patches are incremental, > > > > > > > and port this driver to work with upstream Kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > - Due to legal reasons, I need to preserve the authorship of > > > > > > > each one responsbile for each patch. So, I need to start from > > > > > > > the original patch from Kernel 4.4; > > > > ... > > > > > > I do acknowledge you need to preserve history and all - > > > > > > but this patchset is not easy to review. > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need to preserve history ? Adding relevant Signed-off-by and > > > > > Co-developed-by should be enough, shouldn't it ? Having a public branch > > > > > that contains the history is useful if anyone is interested, but I don't > > > > > think it's required in mainline. > > > > > > > > Yea. I concur with Laurent here. I'm not sure what legal reasoning you > > > > have on this but preserving the "absolute" history here is actively > > > > detrimental for review and understanding of the patch set. > > > > > > > > Preserving Authorship, Signed-off-by lines and adding Co-developed-by > > > > lines should be sufficient to provide both atribution credit and DCO > > > > history. > > > > > > I'm not convinced that, from legal standpoint, folding things would > > > be enough. See, there are at least 3 legal systems involved here > > > among the different patch authors: > > > > > > - civil law; > > > - common law; > > > - customary law + common law. > > > > > > Merging stuff altogether from different law systems can be problematic, > > > and trying to discuss this with experienced IP property lawyers will > > > for sure take a lot of time and efforts. I also bet that different > > > lawyers will have different opinions, because laws are subject to > > > interpretation. With that matter I'm not aware of any court rules > > > with regards to folded patches. So, it sounds to me that folding > > > patches is something that has yet to be proofed in courts around > > > the globe. > > > > > > At least for US legal system, it sounds that the Country of > > > origin of a patch is relevant, as they have a concept of > > > "national technology" that can be subject to export regulations. > > > > > > From my side, I really prefer to play safe and stay out of any such > > > legal discussions. > > > > Let's be serious for a moment. If you think there are legal issues in > > taking GPL-v2.0-only patches and squashing them while retaining > > authorship information through tags, the Linux kernel if *full* of that. > > You also routinely modify patches that you commit to the media subsystem > > to fix "small issues". > > > > The country of origin argument makes no sense either, the kernel code > > base if full of code coming from pretty much all country on the planet. > > > > Keeping the patches separate make this hard to review. Please squash > > them. > > I'm inclined to agree with Laurent here. > > Patches submitted as GPL-v2 with DCO lines and author names/companies > should be fine to be squashed and rearranged, > as long as the DCO and Authorship is kept somewhere in the new patch > that is applied. > > Review is more important here. Sorry, but I can't agree that review is more important than to be able to properly indicate copyrights in a valid way at the legal systems that it would apply ;-) In any case, there's an easy way to make the code easy to review: I can write the patches against staging (where it is OK to submit preserving the history) and then add a final patch moving it out of staging. You can then just review the last patch, as it will contain the entire code on it. Another alternative, as I'm already doing with Sam, is for me to submit the folded code as a reply to 00/xx. You can then just review the final code, without concerning about how the code reached there. >From review point of the view, this will be the same as reviewing a folded patch, but, from legal standpoint, the entire copyright chain will be preserved. Thanks, Mauro _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CA5C433DF for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC3DE2075B for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:31:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="IBcF48Zx"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="vjYUYXjE" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CC3DE2075B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=fRjby1xhRficR/hAc/DA/iwkPqc5C3eBoD/v4c8Kk8c=; b=IBcF48Zxzi0Zd3TO+dAYoyVwY oQ5528dPPrNSBvHqZDkx9DXgFoN+f25+RlwUxfUnk1j+8shQLRSu6dgUCbzfOc+ULpnRoxURts4qV oaA97JYcM+BWPdp19ePSrnREIBEdYATau93192Zxee2pA+/+w9ToxDK80MtRJ2RCfGLKX8n7QRpXW sAAe7qJy2qkBWx2Q2CbXJC1wDOAlf4fjzjp2u7y+1TBdWrsxQ8gsy4GHTGAcXIRUkXFQg7NeVPpui WVg1WMpaLpYtnsGH6yoLwJczom58SSNfBaJ0PY3Pa2mHzs7ddzKwbrFutR1qy8GTchu3SoGULWqd/ jNQKCJX4g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kAXA2-0004Wp-3S; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:42 +0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kAX9y-0004VI-U3 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:40 +0000 Received: from coco.lan (ip5f5ad5a4.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [95.90.213.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B53082068E; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598355037; bh=hS8MOXkGn7JYwFlDKqfpgI96hhlOO6z5RGuYqJxyWNk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vjYUYXjEaXVD3eAv3vZmxrvIuLgKkLKqMeS9kLfzQ69qD0P0HbZowGUT/hmAmwffm yhiHRysfyy1aN6khI/k+KqtD8yKFr0XivtzoBQzJmSmoZhDkN4wwHZH+fXlz9L07Pt MOWyOw/24QeMx5Wugndtf9E49WkpaoSdesV/9YFE= Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:30:25 +0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Dave Airlie Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/49] DRM driver for Hikey 970 Message-ID: <20200825133025.13f047f0@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20200819152120.GA106437@ravnborg.org> <20200819153045.GA18469@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20200820090326.3f400a15@coco.lan> <20200820100205.GA5962@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.6 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200825_073039_096342_F77908D0 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 46.19 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Neil Armstrong , David Airlie , Wanchun Zheng , linuxarm@huawei.com, dri-devel , Andrzej Hajda , Laurent Pinchart , Sam Ravnborg , driverdevel , Daniel Borkmann , John Fastabend , Xiubin Zhang , Wei Xu , Xinliang Liu , Xinwei Kong , Tomi Valkeinen , Bogdan Togorean , Jakub Kicinski , Laurentiu Palcu , linux-media , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Liwei Cai , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Chen Feng , Alexei Starovoitov , "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" , Rob Herring , mauro.chehab@huawei.com, Rob Clark , linux-arm-kernel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , lkml , Liuyao An , Network Development , Rongrong Zou , BPF Mailing List , "David S. Miller" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Em Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:29:29 +1000 Dave Airlie escreveu: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 20:02, Laurent Pinchart > wrote: > > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:03:26AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Em Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:52:06 -0700 John Stultz escreveu: > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:31 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:21:20PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 01:45:28PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > > > This patch series port the out-of-tree driver for Hikey 970 (which > > > > > > > should also support Hikey 960) from the official 96boards tree: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/96boards-hikey/linux/tree/hikey970-v4.9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on his history, this driver seems to be originally written > > > > > > > for Kernel 4.4, and was later ported to Kernel 4.9. The original > > > > > > > driver used to depend on ION (from Kernel 4.4) and had its own > > > > > > > implementation for FB dev API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I need to preserve the original history (with has patches from > > > > > > > both HiSilicon and from Linaro), I'm starting from the original > > > > > > > patch applied there. The remaining patches are incremental, > > > > > > > and port this driver to work with upstream Kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > - Due to legal reasons, I need to preserve the authorship of > > > > > > > each one responsbile for each patch. So, I need to start from > > > > > > > the original patch from Kernel 4.4; > > > > ... > > > > > > I do acknowledge you need to preserve history and all - > > > > > > but this patchset is not easy to review. > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need to preserve history ? Adding relevant Signed-off-by and > > > > > Co-developed-by should be enough, shouldn't it ? Having a public branch > > > > > that contains the history is useful if anyone is interested, but I don't > > > > > think it's required in mainline. > > > > > > > > Yea. I concur with Laurent here. I'm not sure what legal reasoning you > > > > have on this but preserving the "absolute" history here is actively > > > > detrimental for review and understanding of the patch set. > > > > > > > > Preserving Authorship, Signed-off-by lines and adding Co-developed-by > > > > lines should be sufficient to provide both atribution credit and DCO > > > > history. > > > > > > I'm not convinced that, from legal standpoint, folding things would > > > be enough. See, there are at least 3 legal systems involved here > > > among the different patch authors: > > > > > > - civil law; > > > - common law; > > > - customary law + common law. > > > > > > Merging stuff altogether from different law systems can be problematic, > > > and trying to discuss this with experienced IP property lawyers will > > > for sure take a lot of time and efforts. I also bet that different > > > lawyers will have different opinions, because laws are subject to > > > interpretation. With that matter I'm not aware of any court rules > > > with regards to folded patches. So, it sounds to me that folding > > > patches is something that has yet to be proofed in courts around > > > the globe. > > > > > > At least for US legal system, it sounds that the Country of > > > origin of a patch is relevant, as they have a concept of > > > "national technology" that can be subject to export regulations. > > > > > > From my side, I really prefer to play safe and stay out of any such > > > legal discussions. > > > > Let's be serious for a moment. If you think there are legal issues in > > taking GPL-v2.0-only patches and squashing them while retaining > > authorship information through tags, the Linux kernel if *full* of that. > > You also routinely modify patches that you commit to the media subsystem > > to fix "small issues". > > > > The country of origin argument makes no sense either, the kernel code > > base if full of code coming from pretty much all country on the planet. > > > > Keeping the patches separate make this hard to review. Please squash > > them. > > I'm inclined to agree with Laurent here. > > Patches submitted as GPL-v2 with DCO lines and author names/companies > should be fine to be squashed and rearranged, > as long as the DCO and Authorship is kept somewhere in the new patch > that is applied. > > Review is more important here. Sorry, but I can't agree that review is more important than to be able to properly indicate copyrights in a valid way at the legal systems that it would apply ;-) In any case, there's an easy way to make the code easy to review: I can write the patches against staging (where it is OK to submit preserving the history) and then add a final patch moving it out of staging. You can then just review the last patch, as it will contain the entire code on it. Another alternative, as I'm already doing with Sam, is for me to submit the folded code as a reply to 00/xx. You can then just review the final code, without concerning about how the code reached there. >From review point of the view, this will be the same as reviewing a folded patch, but, from legal standpoint, the entire copyright chain will be preserved. Thanks, Mauro _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7DB1C433E1 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 987B02075F for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="vjYUYXjE" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 987B02075F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F2F6E8E8; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAE1B6E8E8 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from coco.lan (ip5f5ad5a4.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [95.90.213.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B53082068E; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:30:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598355037; bh=hS8MOXkGn7JYwFlDKqfpgI96hhlOO6z5RGuYqJxyWNk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vjYUYXjEaXVD3eAv3vZmxrvIuLgKkLKqMeS9kLfzQ69qD0P0HbZowGUT/hmAmwffm yhiHRysfyy1aN6khI/k+KqtD8yKFr0XivtzoBQzJmSmoZhDkN4wwHZH+fXlz9L07Pt MOWyOw/24QeMx5Wugndtf9E49WkpaoSdesV/9YFE= Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:30:25 +0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Dave Airlie Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/49] DRM driver for Hikey 970 Message-ID: <20200825133025.13f047f0@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20200819152120.GA106437@ravnborg.org> <20200819153045.GA18469@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20200820090326.3f400a15@coco.lan> <20200820100205.GA5962@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.6 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Neil Armstrong , David Airlie , Wanchun Zheng , linuxarm@huawei.com, dri-devel , Andrzej Hajda , Laurent Pinchart , Sam Ravnborg , driverdevel , Daniel Borkmann , John Fastabend , Xiubin Zhang , Wei Xu , Xinliang Liu , Xinwei Kong , Tomi Valkeinen , Bogdan Togorean , Jakub Kicinski , Laurentiu Palcu , linux-media , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Liwei Cai , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Chen Feng , Alexei Starovoitov , "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" , Rob Herring , mauro.chehab@huawei.com, Rob Clark , linux-arm-kernel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , lkml , Liuyao An , Network Development , Rongrong Zou , BPF Mailing List , "David S. Miller" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" Em Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:29:29 +1000 Dave Airlie escreveu: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 20:02, Laurent Pinchart > wrote: > > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:03:26AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Em Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:52:06 -0700 John Stultz escreveu: > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:31 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:21:20PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 01:45:28PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > > > This patch series port the out-of-tree driver for Hikey 970 (which > > > > > > > should also support Hikey 960) from the official 96boards tree: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/96boards-hikey/linux/tree/hikey970-v4.9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on his history, this driver seems to be originally written > > > > > > > for Kernel 4.4, and was later ported to Kernel 4.9. The original > > > > > > > driver used to depend on ION (from Kernel 4.4) and had its own > > > > > > > implementation for FB dev API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I need to preserve the original history (with has patches from > > > > > > > both HiSilicon and from Linaro), I'm starting from the original > > > > > > > patch applied there. The remaining patches are incremental, > > > > > > > and port this driver to work with upstream Kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > - Due to legal reasons, I need to preserve the authorship of > > > > > > > each one responsbile for each patch. So, I need to start from > > > > > > > the original patch from Kernel 4.4; > > > > ... > > > > > > I do acknowledge you need to preserve history and all - > > > > > > but this patchset is not easy to review. > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need to preserve history ? Adding relevant Signed-off-by and > > > > > Co-developed-by should be enough, shouldn't it ? Having a public branch > > > > > that contains the history is useful if anyone is interested, but I don't > > > > > think it's required in mainline. > > > > > > > > Yea. I concur with Laurent here. I'm not sure what legal reasoning you > > > > have on this but preserving the "absolute" history here is actively > > > > detrimental for review and understanding of the patch set. > > > > > > > > Preserving Authorship, Signed-off-by lines and adding Co-developed-by > > > > lines should be sufficient to provide both atribution credit and DCO > > > > history. > > > > > > I'm not convinced that, from legal standpoint, folding things would > > > be enough. See, there are at least 3 legal systems involved here > > > among the different patch authors: > > > > > > - civil law; > > > - common law; > > > - customary law + common law. > > > > > > Merging stuff altogether from different law systems can be problematic, > > > and trying to discuss this with experienced IP property lawyers will > > > for sure take a lot of time and efforts. I also bet that different > > > lawyers will have different opinions, because laws are subject to > > > interpretation. With that matter I'm not aware of any court rules > > > with regards to folded patches. So, it sounds to me that folding > > > patches is something that has yet to be proofed in courts around > > > the globe. > > > > > > At least for US legal system, it sounds that the Country of > > > origin of a patch is relevant, as they have a concept of > > > "national technology" that can be subject to export regulations. > > > > > > From my side, I really prefer to play safe and stay out of any such > > > legal discussions. > > > > Let's be serious for a moment. If you think there are legal issues in > > taking GPL-v2.0-only patches and squashing them while retaining > > authorship information through tags, the Linux kernel if *full* of that. > > You also routinely modify patches that you commit to the media subsystem > > to fix "small issues". > > > > The country of origin argument makes no sense either, the kernel code > > base if full of code coming from pretty much all country on the planet. > > > > Keeping the patches separate make this hard to review. Please squash > > them. > > I'm inclined to agree with Laurent here. > > Patches submitted as GPL-v2 with DCO lines and author names/companies > should be fine to be squashed and rearranged, > as long as the DCO and Authorship is kept somewhere in the new patch > that is applied. > > Review is more important here. Sorry, but I can't agree that review is more important than to be able to properly indicate copyrights in a valid way at the legal systems that it would apply ;-) In any case, there's an easy way to make the code easy to review: I can write the patches against staging (where it is OK to submit preserving the history) and then add a final patch moving it out of staging. You can then just review the last patch, as it will contain the entire code on it. Another alternative, as I'm already doing with Sam, is for me to submit the folded code as a reply to 00/xx. You can then just review the final code, without concerning about how the code reached there. >From review point of the view, this will be the same as reviewing a folded patch, but, from legal standpoint, the entire copyright chain will be preserved. Thanks, Mauro _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel