Re: [platforms: PATCH 01/13] Marvell/Armada: Introduce platform initialization driver

[Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>]

Leif,

2017-10-11 10:32 GMT+02:00 Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:53:05AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote:
>> >> 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 <mw@semihalf.com>
>> >> [Introduce protocol GUID to force correct driver dispatch order]
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>
>> >>
>> >> 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?)?
>
> Well, we're not debating this because it's critical for this one
> patch, but because it would be useful to have a precedent.
>

I'm totally fine with precedences, it's rather your call, whether it's
accepted or not :) My three arugments are:
- I have still a lot patches ahead and it's very likely such situation
may occur again.
- Needless to say, it may happen again in the development of other platforms.
- Artificially splitting patches seems to me as not really needed and
I'm not convinced to its justification.

>> Anyway, let's make a quick decision here - should I submit patch with
>> linux-like signatures and description? Or should I split the patches?
>
> Let's put it this way - if you split the patches, you remove this
> series from abovementioned discussion :)
>

If you're ok with it, I'd go with single patch, but I can do it either
way - I think I'm not to decide, what's best from maintainers' point
of view :)

Best regards,
Marcin