linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: Add DP compliance tests on Snapdragon Chipsets

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: <159528794676.3847286.1584696687662833591@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:32:26 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     khsieh@...eaurora.org
Cc:     robdclark@...il.com, sean@...rly.run, tanmay@...eaurora.org,
        abhinavk@...eaurora.org, aravindh@...eaurora.org, airlied@...ux.ie,
        daniel@...ll.ch, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: Add DP compliance tests on Snapdragon Chipsets

Quoting khsieh@...eaurora.org (2020-07-20 15:48:13)
> On 2020-07-20 13:18, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2020-07-07 11:41:25)
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_power.c           |  32 +-
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_power.h           |   1 +
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_reg.h             |   1 +
> >>  17 files changed, 861 insertions(+), 424 deletions(-)
> > 
> > It seems to spread various changes throughout the DP bits and only has 
> > a
> > short description about what's changing. Given that the series above
> > isn't merged it would be better to get rid of this change and make the
> > changes in the patches that introduce these files.
> > 
> 
> Yes, the base DP driver is not yet merged as its still in reviews and 
> has been for a while.
> While it is being reviewed, different developers are working on 
> different aspects of DP such as base DP driver, DP compliance, audio etc 
> to keep things going in parallel.
> To maintain the authorship of the different developers, we prefer having 
> them as separate changes and not merge them.
> We can make all these changes as part of the same series if that shall 
> help to keep things together but would prefer the changes themselves to 
> be separate.
> Please consider this and let us know if that works.
> 

I'm not the maintainer here so it's not really up to me, but this is why
we have the Co-developed-by tag, to show that multiple people worked on
some patch. The patch is supposed to logically stand on its own
regardless of how many people worked on it. Authorship is a single
person but the Co-developed-by tag helps express that more than one
person is the actual author of the patch. Can you use that tag instead
and then squash this into the other DP patches?