Re: [PATCH 08/10] clk: qcom: Add graphics clock controller driver for SM8250

From: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] clk: qcom: Add graphics clock controller driver for SM8250
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 23:50:23 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7b2620cf98dc915307d2a29f05eca454@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200603180943.GX11847@yoga>

Hi Bjorn,

On 2020-06-03 23:39, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 28 May 23:56 PDT 2020, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> 
>> Hi Bjorn,
>> 
>> On 2020-05-29 06:41, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> > On Mon 25 May 02:47 PDT 2020, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Jonathan,
>> > >
>> > > On 2020-05-25 02:36, Jonathan Marek wrote:
>> > > > Add support for the graphics clock controller found on SM8250
>> > > > based devices. This would allow graphics drivers to probe and
>> > > > control their clocks.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is copied from the downstream kernel, adapted for upstream.
>> > > > For example, GDSCs have been added.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
>> > >
>> > > Since this is taken from downstream, maintain the original author's
>> > > signed-off and add yourself as the co-developer if you have done
>> > > any modifications. Same applies to all other patches.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I disagree with this.
>> >
>> > As expressed in the commit message, this patch is based on the
>> > downstream driver, not the individual patch.  As such, the _patch_ is
>> > prepared by Jonathan and by his Signed-off-by certifies the origin of
>> > the contribution per section 11.a or 11.b of submitting-patches.rst.
>> >
>> 
>> I lost at the downstream driver vs the individual patch here. So the
>> downstream driver is also an individual patch right or did I get
>> something completely wrong.
>> 
> 
> The downstream driver is the result of a series of patches, by various
> people, whom all use their Signed-off-by to denote that what they add 
> is
> conforming to the given license and that they have permission to
> contribute to the project.
> 
>> So if someone prepares a patch and includes a commit description
>> saying it is taken from downstream, does it mean he is the author
>> of that patch?
> 
> No, but I think the wording here is wrong. The patch is not taken from
> downstream, it's based on downstream code.
> 
>> Shouldn't the author be included in  "From: Author"
>> and his signed-off appear first before the submitter's(also a 
>> contributor)
>> signed-off?
> 
> It should, in the case that what is contributed is the forwarding of a
> patch found somewhere.
> 
> But as I said before, Jonathan does through his S-o-b state that his
> patch is based on previous work that is covered under appropriate open
> source license and that he has the right under that license to
> contribute said work.
> 
> As such, his patch is meeting the requirements.
> 
> 
> The other part is how to give credit to authors of the original work,
> Jonathan does that by stating that it's based on work in the downstream
> kernel - which is quite typical to how it's done.
> 
>> Or is it because these clock data is auto generated and it
>> doesnt really matter?
>> 
> 
> No. The author and s-o-b relates to license compliance, as such the
> person who committed the auto generated work will sign off that the
> content is license compliant and he/she is allowed to contribute it to
> the project.
> 

Thanks for these nice explanations.

Regards,
Sai

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation