Re: [PATCH 08/10] clk: qcom: Add graphics clock controller driver for SM8250

[Sai Prakash Ranjan]

Hi Bjorn,

On 2020-06-03 23:39, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 28 May 23:56 PDT 2020, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> The downstream driver is the result of a series of patches, by various
> people, whom all use their Signed-off-by to denote that what they add 
> is
> conforming to the given license and that they have permission to
> contribute to the project.
>
> > 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?
>
> No, but I think the wording here is wrong. The patch is not taken from
> downstream, it's based on downstream code.
>
> > Shouldn't the author be included in  "From: Author"
> > and his signed-off appear first before the submitter's(also a 
> > contributor)
> > signed-off?
>
> It should, in the case that what is contributed is the forwarding of a
> patch found somewhere.
>
> But as I said before, Jonathan does through his S-o-b state that his
> patch is based on previous work that is covered under appropriate open
> source license and that he has the right under that license to
> contribute said work.
>
> As such, his patch is meeting the requirements.
>
>
> The other part is how to give credit to authors of the original work,
> Jonathan does that by stating that it's based on work in the downstream
> kernel - which is quite typical to how it's done.
>
> > Or is it because these clock data is auto generated and it
> > doesnt really matter?
>
> No. The author and s-o-b relates to license compliance, as such the
> person who committed the auto generated work will sign off that the
> content is license compliant and he/she is allowed to contribute it to
> the project.

Thanks for these nice explanations.

Regards,
Sai

--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation