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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 68593C433DF for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:09:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4487B20734 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:09:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="NldWpumu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726408AbgFCSJx (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:09:53 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34192 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726363AbgFCSJw (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:09:52 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x841.google.com (mail-qt1-x841.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::841]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84740C08C5C3 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x841.google.com with SMTP id g18so2829981qtu.13 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:09:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=l+YRFO1Jqur/v+izNNUOK0uXUs+D9YNZAMbqThNlzeA=; b=NldWpumuhDbPRpYzENr0K/9s/qHVPFcaULayo2UH6gBZY5klR9F0u7BdisexLTUr60 rtrNS5LDZo4+h7qSUL1dULzAzJamfgEuu2abhGV5SZqiPQakbedt3sJhIG0HoBRFH+3l L6xLtKbwTDA/9Z2SNH4d45SZRYWQQ/TqqhzJKX3igwQhHbBP6m49b0vT06weMuB5+FFK gdoqGDR7MJFK1cAvidDnBb2AsdsPvl94j1gf6E8JeNupkkDWVLG0vZSaX6eBYJgpO5r2 hWY1b9i8O9CuTQTGKEIwjuLXiYiP2eXUxVKLajVQUqaHObMbFuZq8LmA64skR4XaRbSE IoEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=l+YRFO1Jqur/v+izNNUOK0uXUs+D9YNZAMbqThNlzeA=; b=BtwRawUf6mTxx4/x2mWycKZICnnOgHG9jupuQ+6iEnMM9fCbTtrITFn4/mxp7MHJbJ g7SwXOjqiSdfS/ICe7Q/0CbnMqOBIAUA7xEhI4Z0xgpVAYynu5O9nEbdBt2ipo6L0/sz 8YJhlcA6nXlh9tSUs06X6JHgH9k/Jdtn7A9GlzYdCwngtXL1NSB1XfKX8/Y9G771siqT WUgbBfto4SjrLSASJXnCTrGItWc78n97boDmFmgpxoB9xoH7sxX4RaUiE9HNdbpONTHA nE2gnb3HE3/TnpQWnFeN+3oz8mKvFXKCXvqibEbh/MOAJI7Kc4NUSitN053OiGnV8yX7 NURA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530z69WMn6QQl+hwvl+9bNoywA44Ynr8nGwcnXVgqT6Mxpa0O50s diCH4YOwkeXgAfmSS8wrPAl9cA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykygamjsojzqNXzfdSommDfxYT09rvBLBZ/o9nNI1XtfpsPstLVOAM+OK1Jj+lwJGLleSXFA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3fdb:: with SMTP id v27mr623567qtk.220.1591207790414; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:09:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yoga ([2607:fb90:84f0:6dc6:b843:e3ff:fe62:cb58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v144sm2243803qka.69.2020.06.03.11.09.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:09:43 -0700 From: Bjorn Andersson To: Sai Prakash Ranjan 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 Message-ID: <20200603180943.GX11847@yoga> References: <20200524210615.17035-1-jonathan@marek.ca> <20200524210615.17035-9-jonathan@marek.ca> <20200529011127.GJ279327@builder.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > > > 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. Regards, Bjorn > > > > 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