lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-29 08:57    [W:0.131 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site