From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753302AbdBCOIW (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:08:22 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-f194.google.com ([209.85.216.194]:34558 "EHLO mail-qt0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752248AbdBCOIT (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:08:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1485815302-5708-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:08:18 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/2] serial: exar: split out the exar code from 8250_pci To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Sudip Mukherjee , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2017-01-30 23:28, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> From: Sudip Mukherjee >> >> Add the serial driver for the Exar chips. And also register the >> platform device for the GPIO provided by the Exar chips. > > "Also" means you are doing two things in one patch - was this already > discussed and accepted in previous review rounds? If so, ignore my > comment, but I would have asked for two patches, one that just > translates the existing code and another that adds this new feature. Since it's already in Greg's tty-next, no point to fix anymore this particular part. However, you are right that few lines of code might be split to a separate change. >> +/* >> + * Probe module for 8250/16550-type Exar chips PCI serial ports. >> + * >> + * Based on drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci.c, >> + * >> + * Copyright (C) 2017 Sudip Mukherjee, All Rights Reserved. > > It's legally cleaner to carry over the copyright notice from the > original file, unless you rewrote everything (unlikely on first glance). > You may still add yours to the list for the significant contributions. > > BTW, are you personally the copyright holder or your employer Codethink? > Depends on your contractual situation, but the former is less common. This is good comment and I think it needs to be addressed (as a separate change due to above). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko