Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 May 2020 12:26:50 +0530 | From | Sai Prakash Ranjan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/10] clk: qcom: Add graphics clock controller driver for SM8250 |
| |
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.
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
| |