[PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[Uwe Kleine-König]

fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
---
Hello,

I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.

Best regards
Uwe

 fdtoverlay.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fdtoverlay.c b/fdtoverlay.c
index 5350af65679f..cac6b6576c28 100644
--- a/fdtoverlay.c
+++ b/fdtoverlay.c
@@ -23,9 +23,7 @@
 /* Usage related data. */
 static const char usage_synopsis[] =
 	"apply a number of overlays to a base blob\n"
-	"	fdtoverlay <options> [<overlay.dtbo> [<overlay.dtbo>]]\n"
-	"\n"
-	USAGE_TYPE_MSG;
+	"	fdtoverlay <options> [<overlay.dtbo> [<overlay.dtbo>]]";
 static const char usage_short_opts[] = "i:o:v" USAGE_COMMON_SHORT_OPTS;
 static struct option const usage_long_opts[] = {
 	{"input",            required_argument, NULL, 'i'},

base-commit: c001fc01a43e7a06447c06ea3d50bd60641322b8
-- 
2.35.1

Re: [PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[David Gibson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1549 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
> modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
> ---
> Hello,
> 
> I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
> formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
> semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.

It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b
lines to be present.

The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply.

> 
> Best regards
> Uwe
> 
>  fdtoverlay.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fdtoverlay.c b/fdtoverlay.c
> index 5350af65679f..cac6b6576c28 100644
> --- a/fdtoverlay.c
> +++ b/fdtoverlay.c
> @@ -23,9 +23,7 @@
>  /* Usage related data. */
>  static const char usage_synopsis[] =
>  	"apply a number of overlays to a base blob\n"
> -	"	fdtoverlay <options> [<overlay.dtbo> [<overlay.dtbo>]]\n"
> -	"\n"
> -	USAGE_TYPE_MSG;
> +	"	fdtoverlay <options> [<overlay.dtbo> [<overlay.dtbo>]]";
>  static const char usage_short_opts[] = "i:o:v" USAGE_COMMON_SHORT_OPTS;
>  static struct option const usage_long_opts[] = {
>  	{"input",            required_argument, NULL, 'i'},
> 
> base-commit: c001fc01a43e7a06447c06ea3d50bd60641322b8

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]

Hello David,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:54:19PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
> > modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
> > ---
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
> > formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
> > semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.
> 
> It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b
> lines to be present.
> 
> The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply.

Then I wonder about the semantic of the Signed-off-by for dtc. Do you
believe it has any juristical effect if you don't give it an explicit
meaning for the project? INAL, but it feels wrong to me to insist on a
formalism but not having formalized its meaning.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[David Gibson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1493 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello David,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:54:19PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
> > > modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
> > > ---
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
> > > formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
> > > semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.
> > 
> > It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b
> > lines to be present.
> > 
> > The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply.
> 
> Then I wonder about the semantic of the Signed-off-by for dtc. Do you
> believe it has any juristical effect if you don't give it an explicit
> meaning for the project? INAL, but it feels wrong to me to insist on a
> formalism but not having formalized its meaning.

Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by "juristical effect".  AFAIK
the S-o-b lines never have any legal force, as such - they're just a
form of documentation that helps to locate the right people to contact
if legal questions show up in future.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1784 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:48:22AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello David,
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:54:19PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
> > > > modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
> > > > ---
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
> > > > formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
> > > > semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.
> > > 
> > > It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b
> > > lines to be present.
> > > 
> > > The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply.
> > 
> > Then I wonder about the semantic of the Signed-off-by for dtc. Do you
> > believe it has any juristical effect if you don't give it an explicit
> > meaning for the project? INAL, but it feels wrong to me to insist on a
> > formalism but not having formalized its meaning.
> 
> Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by "juristical effect". 

For kernel patches (and quite a few other projects that adopted the
"Developer's Certificate of Origin", I'd expect that as a maintainer or
user of the project you can assume that there are no license problems
with the contribution.

> AFAIK the S-o-b lines never have any legal force, as such - they're
> just a form of documentation that helps to locate the right people to
> contact if legal questions show up in future.

Even without S-o-b I'm listed in the Author line, isn't that enough for
providing a point of contact?

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2448 bytes --]

Hello,

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:35:18AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:48:22AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Hello David,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:54:19PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
> > > > > modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
> > > > > formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
> > > > > semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.
> > > > 
> > > > It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b
> > > > lines to be present.
> > > > 
> > > > The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply.
> > > 
> > > Then I wonder about the semantic of the Signed-off-by for dtc. Do you
> > > believe it has any juristical effect if you don't give it an explicit
> > > meaning for the project? INAL, but it feels wrong to me to insist on a
> > > formalism but not having formalized its meaning.
> > 
> > Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by "juristical effect". 
> 
> For kernel patches (and quite a few other projects that adopted the
> "Developer's Certificate of Origin", I'd expect that as a maintainer or
> user of the project you can assume that there are no license problems
> with the contribution.
> 
> > AFAIK the S-o-b lines never have any legal force, as such - they're
> > just a form of documentation that helps to locate the right people to
> > contact if legal questions show up in future.
> 
> Even without S-o-b I'm listed in the Author line, isn't that enough for
> providing a point of contact?

This patch wasn't applied and the S-o-b discussion just died.

In my eyes the options here are:

 a) just apply the patch as is
 b) formalize the meaning of S-o-b and then I can resend with my
    signature (assuming I agree to the formalization).

I don't have a strong opinion here, but my favourite would be a) as it's
less work for me.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[David Gibson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2707 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:29:18AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:35:18AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:48:22AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > Hello David,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:54:19PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > > fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
> > > > > > modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
> > > > > > formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
> > > > > > semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b
> > > > > lines to be present.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply.
> > > > 
> > > > Then I wonder about the semantic of the Signed-off-by for dtc. Do you
> > > > believe it has any juristical effect if you don't give it an explicit
> > > > meaning for the project? INAL, but it feels wrong to me to insist on a
> > > > formalism but not having formalized its meaning.
> > > 
> > > Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by "juristical effect". 
> > 
> > For kernel patches (and quite a few other projects that adopted the
> > "Developer's Certificate of Origin", I'd expect that as a maintainer or
> > user of the project you can assume that there are no license problems
> > with the contribution.
> > 
> > > AFAIK the S-o-b lines never have any legal force, as such - they're
> > > just a form of documentation that helps to locate the right people to
> > > contact if legal questions show up in future.
> > 
> > Even without S-o-b I'm listed in the Author line, isn't that enough for
> > providing a point of contact?
> 
> This patch wasn't applied and the S-o-b discussion just died.
> 
> In my eyes the options here are:
> 
>  a) just apply the patch as is
>  b) formalize the meaning of S-o-b and then I can resend with my
>     signature (assuming I agree to the formalization).
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion here, but my favourite would be a) as it's
> less work for me.

I've been meaning to do (b), but I just haven't gotten around to it.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] fdtoverlay: Fix usage string to not mention "<type>"

[David Gibson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3053 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 07:45:19PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:29:18AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:35:18AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:48:22AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > Hello David,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:54:19PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > > > fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
> > > > > > > modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
> > > > > > > formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
> > > > > > > semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b
> > > > > > lines to be present.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then I wonder about the semantic of the Signed-off-by for dtc. Do you
> > > > > believe it has any juristical effect if you don't give it an explicit
> > > > > meaning for the project? INAL, but it feels wrong to me to insist on a
> > > > > formalism but not having formalized its meaning.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by "juristical effect". 
> > > 
> > > For kernel patches (and quite a few other projects that adopted the
> > > "Developer's Certificate of Origin", I'd expect that as a maintainer or
> > > user of the project you can assume that there are no license problems
> > > with the contribution.
> > > 
> > > > AFAIK the S-o-b lines never have any legal force, as such - they're
> > > > just a form of documentation that helps to locate the right people to
> > > > contact if legal questions show up in future.
> > > 
> > > Even without S-o-b I'm listed in the Author line, isn't that enough for
> > > providing a point of contact?
> > 
> > This patch wasn't applied and the S-o-b discussion just died.
> > 
> > In my eyes the options here are:
> > 
> >  a) just apply the patch as is
> >  b) formalize the meaning of S-o-b and then I can resend with my
> >     signature (assuming I agree to the formalization).
> > 
> > I don't have a strong opinion here, but my favourite would be a) as it's
> > less work for me.
> 
> I've been meaning to do (b), but I just haven't gotten around to it.

Sorry, it's taken me forever to follow up on this, but I've now posted
some patches formalizing the S-o-b process for dtc (along with some
other updates to the README.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]