linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: misc: tmr-inject: Add device-tree binding for TMR Inject

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: <bc99e06b-1aa5-441e-c86f-0fbfb0945d0c@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:35:09 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
        Appana Durga Kedareswara rao 
        <appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@....com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, michal.simek@...inx.com,
        derek.kiernan@...inx.com, dragan.cvetic@...inx.com, arnd@...db.de,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     appanad@....com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        git@....com, git@...inx.com,
        Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: misc: tmr-inject: Add device-tree
 binding for TMR Inject

On 20/07/2022 10:26, Michal Simek wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/20/22 08:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/07/2022 08:00, Appana Durga Kedareswara rao wrote:
>>> From: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>
>>>
>>> The Triple Modular Redundancy(TMR) Inject core provides functional fault
>>> injection by changing selected MicroBlaze instructions, which provides the
>>> possibility to verify that the TMR subsystem error detection and fault
>>> recovery logic is working properly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@....com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>
>>
>> Keep only one SoB.
> 
> nit: First of all it is from xilinx.com that's why xilinx.com should be the first.
> 
> Just for my understanding about guidance here.
> Code was developed by Xilinx before acquisition with AMD. And because it was 
> picked from vendor tree origin xilinx.com was there to keep origin author there. 
> And upstreaming is done by new company. I can't see nothing wrong on keeping 
> both emails there but that's why my opinion. Definitely not a problem to remove 
> one of them but wanted to make sure that we do it properly for all our submissions.

It's the same person. No need for two SoBs from the same person. Since
AMD acquired Xilinx, it holds all copyrights thus @amd.com person does
not have to include previous SoB. He/She/They has the permission from
employer to submit it. The second SoB is just redundant - brings no
actual information. Otherwise please tell me which piece of DCO the
additional SoB adds/solves (comparing to single SoB - @amd.com)?

Similarly when you change jobs while resending your patch - you do not
add new SoB but just keep SoB from @previous-company.com.


Best regards,
Krzysztof