linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add initial support for Pine64 PinePhone Pro

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]

Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:38:21 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Tom Fitzhenry <tom@...-fitzhenry.me.uk>,
        Caleb Connolly <kc@...tmarketos.org>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, heiko@...ech.de
Cc:     megi@....cz, martijn@...xit.nl, ayufan@...fan.eu,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add initial support for
 Pine64 PinePhone Pro

On 06/08/2022 04:37, Tom Fitzhenry wrote:
> On 6/8/22 12:10, Caleb Connolly wrote:
>> I was surprised to see this series, and this patch especially.
>> An almost ready to submit version of this patch with considerably more 
>> functionality has been sat around for a while but unfortunately never 
>> sent [1].
> 
> Firstly, thank you for your review!
> 
> I'm not sure why that other patch series has never been submitted. It 
> was prepared 3 months ago (unbeknownst to me, at the time of v1), but 
> since then has not been submitted.
> 
> I would feel uncomfortable submitting that patch series, since I am not 
> familiar with parts of the full DT. In time I intend to be, but for now 
> I think we'd benefit from having a base DT mainlined, on top of which we 
> can iterate and parallelise.
> 
>> According to the link below (and my own knowledge of PPP development) 
>> Kamil is the original author of this patch, both Kamil and Martijn 
>> created the initial version of the devicetree. Given that you're using 
>> their work as a base, Kamil's authorship should be respected in the 
>> patch you submit.
> 
> I agree authorship is important, and thus Kamil, Martijn and Megi are 
> listed as Co-developed-by in this patch.

But you miss their SoB... Without them you should not send it. It does
not pass checkpatch, does it?

> 
>> Their original patch [2] contained SoBs from them and Martijn, those are 
>> both missing below. Both of their signed-off-by tags should be added 
>> before this patch hits the mailing list, and the same for Ondrej. The 
>> order also seems wrong (Ondrej should be last before you).
> 
> Yes, this patch's acceptance is blocked until all Co-developed-by 
> authors (Kamil, Martjin, Megi) provide their Signed-off-by to this patch.

You add SoB based on original work. When you send a patch, it is
expected to be ready (so having correct DCO chain), not incomplete from
our process point of view.

Best regards,
Krzysztof