linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] clk: qcom: Add graphics clock controller driver for SM8250

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <dbcb5c24f8888d6b0cfc63a80e310319@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 12:26:50 +0530
From:   Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Marek <jonathan@...ek.ca>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
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@...ek.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