> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:23 AM > > To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Biwen Li (OSS) <biwen.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; > > robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; Leo Li <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx>; > > Z.q. Hou <zhiqiang.hou@xxxxxxx>; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jiafei Pan <jiafei.pan@xxxxxxx>; Xiaobo Xie > > <xiaobo.xie@xxxxxxx>; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Biwen Li > > <biwen.li@xxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [RESEND 01/11] irqchip: ls-extirq: Add LS1043A, LS1088A > > external interrupt > > > > On 2020-10-26 09:06, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > > On 26/10/2020 09.44, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > >> On 2020-10-26 08:01, Biwen Li wrote: > > >>> From: Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@xxxxxxx> > > >>> > > >>> Add an new IRQ chip declaration for LS1043A and LS1088A > > >>> - compatible "fsl,ls1043a-extirq" for LS1043A, LS1046A > > >>> - compatible "fsl,ls1088a-extirq" for LS1088A, LS208xA, LX216xA > > >> > > >> Three things: > > >> - This commit message doesn't describe the bit_reverse change > > > > > > Yeah, please elaborate on that, as the RM for 1043 or 1046 doesn't > > > mention anything about bit reversal for the scfg registers - they > > > don't seem to have the utter nonsense that is SCFG_SCFGREVCR, but > > > perhaps, instead of removing it, that has just become a hard-coded > > > part of the IP. > > > > > > Also, IANAL etc., but > > > > > >>> +// Copyright 2019-2020 NXP > > > > > > really? Seems to be a bit of a stretch. > > > > > > At the very least, cc'ing the original author and only person to > > > ever touch that file would have been appreciated. > > > > Huh. Well spotted. That's definitely not on. > > NXP people, please talk to your legal department. > > We do have an internal policy to require developer adding/updating NXP > copyright on non-trivial changes. I'm not sure if this change should be > considered trivial, but adding copyright claim on a file without prior copyright > claims could causing confusion like in this case. One potential solution is to > add a more specific description on the NXP change together with the copyright > claim. But maybe an easier solution is to add Rasmus your Copyright claim > first if you are ok with it. Yes, added a wrong Copyright. > > Regards, > Leo
