On 5/11/2022 10:16 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>>> This is essentially the same code as proposed by NOGUCHI Hiroshi >>>> <drvlabo@xxxxxxxxx> here: >>> I would credit Hiroshi with a Suggested-by at least >> I read submitting patches rules again and thought that Signed-off-by is >> suitable for this case. Is this ok? > Either you take his work almost like it is and he must be the author > *and* the first signed-off-by line, or you take the authorship if you > think you did enough modifications to the code and in this case you can > either credit him with a suggested-by before your signed-off, or you > can credit him with a co-developed-by + his signed-off and then yours. Thank you for clarification! My modifications were quite small: - Remove redundant braces and logical NOT operator - Define pr_fmt - Replace kcalloc by kzalloc - Use of_get_child_count() and alloc big enough array before the for_each_child_of_node() Therefore, I prefer to keep the authorship of the original author (NOGUCHI Hiroshi). Patch is really good and was successfully tested on the hundreds of Sercomm devices (5.4, 5.10, 5.15 Kernel). My motivation for upstreaming is work under official support for these devices in OpenWrt. What are the next steps from my side in this case? Should I wait for review of this patch here (Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20220510162655.21011-1-csharper2005@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u ) or do I need to do something additionally (for example, send updated set v5 with Acked-by from Krzysztof in the first patch)? And sorry for the many questions... I haven't fully mastered the Linux change management process and best practices yet. > Thanks, > Miquèl -- Best regards, Mikhail
