Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 03 Jun 2020 23:50:23 +0530 | From | Sai Prakash Ranjan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/10] clk: qcom: Add graphics clock controller driver for SM8250 |
| |
Hi Bjorn,
On 2020-06-03 23:39, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > 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 <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. >> > > 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. >
Thanks for these nice explanations.
Regards, Sai
-- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |