From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: None (no SPF record) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f; helo=mail-io0-x22f.google.com; envelope-from=mw@semihalf.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0CD821EA15CC for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 97so883035iok.7 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:53:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=semihalf-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hWhGE42PiYLgchdY+S4zbVIFw2z9vqwXyP6fCuF+QUI=; b=1/WV42Jv73o0rI2xfCCWyPTeP24D+zZdZyKBN3jny9Ogg1kYQPS+/wTwmlKnyZZMql HKpnq06o+CaWiL/Wsy2PviOd7JiuxjM0a0HTZBnXrgVwG7PzJ5Zd260oHDcT+TLSL5se ZAn6k3kaZvoeywUAG799eQg0blFeXBQij3PsRJn3PXMqjKxqQvTTy89It2nViM6VV6Zy nzmjDTK/ysWghAwzoNwZObuqUU59rLfQJEX62mgcbcD59hSk/qelVVVh2Wv8RO7Uundb ZnsQD0SIN22POCxSgcfJ2JS96LGmfrb731CN+V3SumytVUSAi1Jl8DGyjMfan2/Jk9NI QVAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hWhGE42PiYLgchdY+S4zbVIFw2z9vqwXyP6fCuF+QUI=; b=l5RyzpGbkP5tT4+us6witTU4v8o3Ryk+XI91b61gsnvn0FcntuDbCRnSUb+wJdKNRo bNdjNtzZdhUm90TJbMonOhQwub10dokWpdPaVrIBDOKsPQ0tH9jqmFbUPgZRYH/PjXOp 0K8ZKdz+HTVQOFDTQIY/qAM1fbCF5/3t1GOKw0LuJukTUtYm+p3c0kYvG/78Ddy/Ljmr wUgUygpKYNjPJyYXR43vL5/gfBpkUUraCcMM036fwj9vv8qgzKryP4pdUNc9he4kc1nD 5tZJbXuEFdWW1QJlFxJanjkCuVtkhcSSLuOqYPogCPP3SFPR4VU2GuhNAXfehehxRMch od5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVb+KyjJN/9ObbaBtfjrrZhSieWbxa6xA604soRYF8KxLlVoYCN rAaPQ2WEgH6QzPG9ZqHWgwO01cXn3OpvX6en04r9qg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QC0pphuPm4FshATBdkFdy4mG7+EDI5jzhJKZYdYNM9oFwQWOfU3BiTii959ciabfHCxgGNDt/8Lwx9axFFfbfI= X-Received: by 10.107.27.141 with SMTP id b135mr19917380iob.262.1507697585787; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:53:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.157.141 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:53:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1507568462-28775-1-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com> <1507568462-28775-2-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com> <20171010143715.w4glyje3pw24kvsm@bivouac.eciton.net> <20171010150327.43zpe5x6gjo4umrx@bivouac.eciton.net> <20171010152649.oau3kjesmjtogb4w@bivouac.eciton.net> From: Marcin Wojtas Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:53:05 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ard Biesheuvel , Leif Lindholm Cc: edk2-devel-01 , Nadav Haklai , Neta Zur Hershkovits , Kostya Porotchkin , Hua Jing , semihalf-dabros-jan Subject: Re: [platforms: PATCH 01/13] Marvell/Armada: Introduce platform initialization driver X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:49:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 2017-10-10 22:36 GMT+02:00 Ard Biesheuvel : > On 10 October 2017 at 16:26, Leif Lindholm wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:06:42PM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: >>> 2017-10-10 17:03 GMT+02:00 Leif Lindholm : >>> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: >>> >> Hi Leif, >>> >> >>> >> 2017-10-10 16:37 GMT+02:00 Leif Lindholm : >>> >> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:00:50PM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: >>> >> >> In order to enable modification of dynamic PCD's for the libraries >>> >> >> and DXE drivers, this patch introduces new driver. It is >>> >> >> executed prior to other drivers. Mpp, ComPhy and Utmi libraries >>> >> >> initialization were moved from PrePi stage to DXE. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> To force the correct driver dispatch sequence, introduce a protocol GUID >>> >> >> and install the protocol as a NULL protocol when PlatInitDxe executes. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 >>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas >>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel >>> >> > >>> >> > What does Ard's Signed-off-by signify here? >>> >> > (I know the authorship on some of these is a bit blurred, since you've >>> >> > been working together, but I'd like to be clear.) >>> >> >>> >> These were the lines, introducing/installing protocol GUID stuff. It >>> >> was in a small separate patch, but I squashed it into bigger one. >>> > >>> > Personally, I would in this instance do: >>> > >>> > Ard >>> > >>> > >>> > It's verbose, but reasonably clear. >>> > >>> >>> How about: >>> >>> In order to enable modification of dynamic PCD's for the libraries >>> and DXE drivers, this patch introduces new driver. It is >>> executed prior to other drivers. Mpp, ComPhy and Utmi libraries >>> initialization were moved from PrePi stage to DXE. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas >>> >>> To force the correct driver dispatch sequence, introduce a protocol GUID >>> and install the protocol as a NULL protocol when PlatInitDxe executes. >>> >>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 >>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel >>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas >>> >>> ? >>> >>> Was that, what you meant? >> >> I think Contibuted-under: still needs to come first. >> >> I don't think we have an explicit policy for how to deal with >> multi-contributor patches. The ones we do see tend to just keep a >> single commit message and list the contributors. >> >> In Linux. it would be something like >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas >> [Introduce protocol GUID to force correct driver dispatch order] >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas >> >> I would be quite happy to use the same format here. >> > > Well, Tianocore still conflates authorship with a statement regarding > the origin of the contribution. I wonder how this is supposed to work > when Linaro engineers such as myself contribute code that was authored > by engineers working in member companies, e.g., Socionext. The license > and the contract that company has with Linaro give me the right to > contribute that code, but that does not make me the author, and I > cannot add a Signed-off-by that wasn't present when we received the > code (even if I knew the name of the author) I think it's fairly easy thing, needlessly twisted... How does above reflect the requirement to add contributor sign-off to someone else's patch (with his authorship and original sign-off - should they be removed?)? Anyway, let's make a quick decision here - should I submit patch with linux-like signatures and description? Or should I split the patches? Best regards, Marcin