linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] irqchip: Add Actions Semi Owl SIRQ controller

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <0cdd2fd4e09c7e51b8b48be914c6846f@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:19:31 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        parthiban@...umiz.com, Saravanan Sekar <sravanhome@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-actions@...ts.infradead.org,
        Parthiban Nallathambi <pn@...x.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] irqchip: Add Actions Semi Owl SIRQ controller

On 2020-09-14 09:51, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:07:18AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Cristian,
>> 
>> On 2020-09-14 08:02, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>> > Hi Marc,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 05:22:41PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> > > On 2020-09-08 09:20, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>> > > > This interrupt controller is found in the Actions Semi Owl SoCs (S500,
>> > > > S700 and S900) and provides support for handling up to 3 external
>> > > > interrupt lines.
>> > > >
>> > > > Each line can be independently configured as interrupt and triggers on
>> > > > either of the edges or either of the levels. Additionally, each line
>> > > > can also be masked individually.
>> > > >
>> > > > The patch is based on the work started by Parthiban Nallathambi:
>> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181126100356.2840578-1-pn@denx.de/
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Parthiban Nallathambi <pn@...x.de>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Saravanan Sekar <sravanhome@...il.com>
>> > > > [cristi: optimized DT, various fixes/cleanups/improvements]
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>
>> > >
>> > > Who is the author of these patches? If this is a co-development,
>> > > please
>> > > use the relevant tags. Otherwise, the author of the patch must come as
>> > > the first SoB.
>> >
>> > I took the authorship for the driver patch, as mentioned in the cover
>> > letter. So, if I understand correctly, my SoB should be moved on top and
>> > I assume I also need to drop the related comment line.
>> 
>> Not quite. Please look at 
>> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst.
> 
> Yes, I have read it, but most probably I missed the information that
> clarifies this authorship change handling.
> 
>> If Parthiban and Saravanan haven't authored anything in this patch,
>> then drop them from the SoB list.
> 
> Sorry I haven't properly explained this before!
> 
> Their contributions to the driver code stopped in 2018, when v3 of the
> patch series has been submitted.
> 
>> If they have contributed to the
>> patch (which I expect), then their SoB must be preceded by their own
>> Co-developed-by: tag.
> 
> Starting with v4, the work has been done exclusively by myself.
> 
>> To sum it up, it probably should look like:
>> 
>> Co-developed-by: Parthiban Nallathambi <pn@...x.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Parthiban Nallathambi <pn@...x.de>
>> Co-developed-by: Saravanan Sekar <sravanhome@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Saravanan Sekar <sravanhome@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>
>> 
>> This is of course an assumption, and you should check it with the
>> individuals above.
> 
> I have recently contacted Parthiban and he agreed that I can take the
> authorship. So I should proceed with the 1st approach?

The authorship of the patch is one thing, acknowledging the work done
by others is another. As you said above, you started by contributing to
an existing series, instead of writing it from scratch. You changed it
to a degree where it makes sense for you to be the author of the 
patches,
but it doesn't invalidate the contributions made by others before you.

Unless the two other contributors explicitly say they'd rather not be
named, I don't see how you can avoid mentioning them.

Thanks,

       M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...