On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 05:37:39PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/09/2022 02:14, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 09:09:13AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 19/09/2022 23:18, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 06:03:27PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On 16/09/2022 21:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >>>>> From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> > >>>>> Add compatibles for the DisplayPort and Embedded DisplayPort blocks in > >>>>> Qualcomm SDM845 and SC8280XP platforms. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> No need for quicinc SoB (unless you also take ownership). > >>>> > >>> > >>> It's my understanding that both needs to be there. Bjorn @ Linaro > >>> authored the patch and the author must certify its origin, but as the > >>> submitter I must certify its origin. > >> > >> It's the same person. There are no two Bjorns (unless there are :) ), so > >> you certify with old email. SoB chain is coming from people, not email > >> addresses. > >> > > > > IANAL, but I don't think it's the same person. I can't use my old > > signature to certify the origin in a contribution today and I can't > > claim authorship of something Linaro did. > > Fine with me. > > > > >> And it is not only my understanding of SoB chain. > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YuKcBO5JatwRYQJ3@xxxxxxxxx/ > >> > > > > Again, IANAL, but I think the situation is different given AMD and > > Xilinx relationship. > > Hm, I am not sure how it is different. We might know or we might know > the change of ownership. Maybe the change of owner came with copyrights, > maybe not (someone else bought them). I don't know, there can be many > cases here. I interpret Greg's point there as in SoB statement - the > person, not email address, certifies. If Bjorn owned the copyright, then yeah, 1 email would be enough. But Linaro owned the copyright so it should be there. Rob