On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 11:15, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 9/13/19 8:29 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:15:38PM +0200, Maciej Falkowski wrote: > >> Convert Samsung Image Rotator to newer dt-schema format. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Maciej Falkowski <m.falkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Just to make it clear, Marek's signed-off should appear for one of > > conditions: > > - he contributed some source code to your patch, > > - he took your patch, rebased, send by himself (not a case here, I > > think), > > - he contributed significant ideas, although for this there is a > > "Co-developed-by" tag. > > > > If someone made just review - add Reviewed-by. If someone suggested the > > patch - add Suggested-by. > > My signed-off here was added to mark that this patch is allowed to be > submitted to the public mailing list, as I have required company > permissions for such activity. It is not that uncommon that a given > patch has more than one signed-off and still the main author has the > first signed-off tag. Thanks for explanations. If I understand correctly, your SoB appears because some internal Samsung rules. That is not what SoB is meant for: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.3-rc8/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L431 If you do not contributed to the patch, did not touch it (e.g. rebasing) and you are not sending it, then your SoB should not be there. It looks like the same madness with Kyungmin Park long time ago: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=6c6cf64b16438eac6da9a90412a82316ad196e7c Every patch was marked with SoB even though he was not involved at all in the process. That's not what kernel's SoB is for. Best regards, Krzysztof
