Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] clk: qcom: dispcc-eliza: Add Eliza display clock controller support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 18/03/2026 15:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/03/2026 14:46, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 12:36:24PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2026 12:32, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 3/18/26 12:13 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 18/03/2026 11:48, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/18/26 11:39 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> Add a driver for the display clock controller on Qualcomm Eliza SoC,
>>>>>>> which is copied from SM8750 driver plus changes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Additional DT_HDMI_PHY_PLL_CLK clock input,
>>>>>>> 2. Eight new HDMI clocks,
>>>>>>> 3. Different PLLs (lucid and pongo).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2021, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2023-2024, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2024-2025, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -> Copyright (c) Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the copyright I found in the downstream code I used in few places
>>>>> here (with modifications) and I am not touching them. I also don't care
>>>>> about these and I am surprised this keeps popping in community review...
>>>>
>>>> You may not care, but our legal department does..
>>>
>>> And your task as community maintainer is to care about community and
>>> Linux kernel, not about legal department.
>>>
>>> Legal department can comment here, if they care. You as maintainer have
>>> rather responsibilities regardless of that legal department.
>>>
>>> Don't bring corpo legal stuff to the community.
>>
>> Then please follow the internal company guidelines as outlined in the
>> legal&marketing documents.
> 
> That's not your task to instruct people what internal stuff should they
> follow or not.
> 
> Especially not implied by previous comment "Then".
> 
>>
>> JFYI, several other Qualcomm maintainers also enforce use of copyright
>> headers for Qualcomm-provided patches. Konrad is not unique here.
> 
> I already objected to one of them, so I know.
> 
> You do understand that this is completely broken review process? As
> every contributor, I can object to that comment with arguments (and I
> did in the past), however you as reviewer do not bring any
> counter-arguments for that all. You just refer "follow legal internal
> stuff". No, this does not work for that.

BTW, I welcome here any legal arguments, not referring to whatever
internal stuff you have, why I should remove EXISTING copyright or
replace it with something.

Also kind of related to above, please provide arguments, since copyright
statements absolutely do not matter and Git history defines actual
copyrights, why I should add more copyright lines after the initial
copyrights I carried over from the code I used.

If you come with argument that I should provide something, then please
at least justify it. And no, do not refer to any internal legal
departments, because they do not matter. They are not being a part of
discussion here.

Best regards,
Krzysztof