Hi Bjorn,
On 2020-05-29 06:41, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Mon 25 May 02:47 PDT 2020, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
On 2020-05-25 02:36, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> Add support for the graphics clock controller found on SM8250
> based devices. This would allow graphics drivers to probe and
> control their clocks.
>
> This is copied from the downstream kernel, adapted for upstream.
> For example, GDSCs have been added.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@xxxxxxxx>
Since this is taken from downstream, maintain the original author's
signed-off and add yourself as the co-developer if you have done
any modifications. Same applies to all other patches.
I disagree with this.
As expressed in the commit message, this patch is based on the
downstream driver, not the individual patch. As such, the _patch_ is
prepared by Jonathan and by his Signed-off-by certifies the origin of
the contribution per section 11.a or 11.b of submitting-patches.rst.
I lost at the downstream driver vs the individual patch here. So the
downstream driver is also an individual patch right or did I get
something completely wrong.
So if someone prepares a patch and includes a commit description
saying it is taken from downstream, does it mean he is the author
of that patch? Shouldn't the author be included in "From: Author"
and his signed-off appear first before the submitter's(also a
contributor)
signed-off? Or is it because these clock data is auto generated and it
doesnt really matter?
Regarding co-developed-by; this should not be used when "forwarding" an
existing patch. Per section 11.c the contributor should add their
Signed-off-by to certify the origin of the patch. Any modifications
should be documented in immediately proceeding the s-o-b, as described
later in section 11.
Yes makes sense to not have co-developed-by for forwarding patch.
Thanks,
Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
