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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 0A838C433E0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 06:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9589208A7 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 06:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=mg.codeaurora.org header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.b="W791R7IM" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725808AbgE2G5B (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 02:57:01 -0400 Received: from mail27.static.mailgun.info ([104.130.122.27]:50292 "EHLO mail27.static.mailgun.info" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725308AbgE2G5B (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 02:57:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1590735420; h=Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Cc: To: From: Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: MIME-Version: Sender; bh=5iWcCbiGZvVMQ5YMmDXPCoC0HJ2lp8gKX/3kGxQlqf0=; b=W791R7IMOK8vo6p60L+imiF0PcJJRlADJhFg3592+9Ihez+2nOtXrV9mfkUr3HQQq5d9NBXV zLXQqXUhqDVrmehu0v1/WY0u86piKocltAxoAyFc6Tz51Rsuq+n42akeJvJPoIKxE7b6pGk4 Lh33WTSX8J5SKvft8xh1MBMSkPM= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 104.130.122.27 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI4MzlhZiIsICJsaW51eC1jbGtAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIiwgImJlOWU0YSJd Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n05.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 5ed0b233809d90496789b209 (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Fri, 29 May 2020 06:56:51 GMT Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 954CAC433CB; Fri, 29 May 2020 06:56:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: saiprakash.ranjan) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F38B0C433C9; Fri, 29 May 2020 06:56:50 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 12:26:50 +0530 From: Sai Prakash Ranjan To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Jonathan Marek , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , 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 In-Reply-To: <20200529011127.GJ279327@builder.lan> References: <20200524210615.17035-1-jonathan@marek.ca> <20200524210615.17035-9-jonathan@marek.ca> <20200529011127.GJ279327@builder.lan> Message-ID: X-Sender: saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9 Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org 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 >> >> 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. 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? Shouldn't the author be included in "From: Author" and his signed-off appear first before the submitter's(also a contributor) signed-off? Or is it because these clock data is auto generated and it doesnt really matter? > > Regarding co-developed-by; this should not be used when "forwarding" an > existing patch. Per section 11.c the contributor should add their > Signed-off-by to certify the origin of the patch. Any modifications > should be documented in immediately proceeding the s-o-b, as described > later in section 11. > Yes makes sense to not have co-developed-by for forwarding patch. Thanks, Sai -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation