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
