| Message ID | 20220916200028.25009-2-quic_bjorande@quicinc.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/msm/dp: Support for external displays | expand |
On 16/09/2022 21:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> > > Add compatibles for the DisplayPort and Embedded DisplayPort blocks in > Qualcomm SDM845 and SC8280XP platforms. > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com> No need for quicinc SoB (unless you also take ownership). Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>\ Best regards, Krzysztof
On 19/09/2022 23:18, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 06:03:27PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 16/09/2022 21:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> >>> >>> Add compatibles for the DisplayPort and Embedded DisplayPort blocks in >>> Qualcomm SDM845 and SC8280XP platforms. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com> >> >> No need for quicinc SoB (unless you also take ownership). >> > > It's my understanding that both needs to be there. Bjorn @ Linaro > authored the patch and the author must certify its origin, but as the > submitter I must certify its origin. It's the same person. There are no two Bjorns (unless there are :) ), so you certify with old email. SoB chain is coming from people, not email addresses. And it is not only my understanding of SoB chain. https://lore.kernel.org/all/YuKcBO5JatwRYQJ3@kroah.com/ > > I'm not entirely sure what you mean about taking ownership, I meant you to be the author of the commit. > I am going > to pursue getting these patches landed. But it wouldn't be correct for > new me to claim I authored them. Yeah, that's true. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 05:37:39PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/09/2022 02:14, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 09:09:13AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 19/09/2022 23:18, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 06:03:27PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On 16/09/2022 21:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >>>>> From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> > >>>>> > >>>>> Add compatibles for the DisplayPort and Embedded DisplayPort blocks in > >>>>> Qualcomm SDM845 and SC8280XP platforms. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com> > >>>> > >>>> No need for quicinc SoB (unless you also take ownership). > >>>> > >>> > >>> It's my understanding that both needs to be there. Bjorn @ Linaro > >>> authored the patch and the author must certify its origin, but as the > >>> submitter I must certify its origin. > >> > >> It's the same person. There are no two Bjorns (unless there are :) ), so > >> you certify with old email. SoB chain is coming from people, not email > >> addresses. > >> > > > > IANAL, but I don't think it's the same person. I can't use my old > > signature to certify the origin in a contribution today and I can't > > claim authorship of something Linaro did. > > Fine with me. > > > > >> And it is not only my understanding of SoB chain. > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YuKcBO5JatwRYQJ3@kroah.com/ > >> > > > > Again, IANAL, but I think the situation is different given AMD and > > Xilinx relationship. > > Hm, I am not sure how it is different. We might know or we might know > the change of ownership. Maybe the change of owner came with copyrights, > maybe not (someone else bought them). I don't know, there can be many > cases here. I interpret Greg's point there as in SoB statement - the > person, not email address, certifies. If Bjorn owned the copyright, then yeah, 1 email would be enough. But Linaro owned the copyright so it should be there. Rob
On 26/09/2022 17:13, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 05:37:39PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 22/09/2022 02:14, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 09:09:13AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 19/09/2022 23:18, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 06:03:27PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 16/09/2022 21:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>>>>> From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Add compatibles for the DisplayPort and Embedded DisplayPort blocks in >>>>>>> Qualcomm SDM845 and SC8280XP platforms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> No need for quicinc SoB (unless you also take ownership). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's my understanding that both needs to be there. Bjorn @ Linaro >>>>> authored the patch and the author must certify its origin, but as the >>>>> submitter I must certify its origin. >>>> >>>> It's the same person. There are no two Bjorns (unless there are :) ), so >>>> you certify with old email. SoB chain is coming from people, not email >>>> addresses. >>>> >>> >>> IANAL, but I don't think it's the same person. I can't use my old >>> signature to certify the origin in a contribution today and I can't >>> claim authorship of something Linaro did. >> >> Fine with me. >> >>> >>>> And it is not only my understanding of SoB chain. >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YuKcBO5JatwRYQJ3@kroah.com/ >>>> >>> >>> Again, IANAL, but I think the situation is different given AMD and >>> Xilinx relationship. >> >> Hm, I am not sure how it is different. We might know or we might know >> the change of ownership. Maybe the change of owner came with copyrights, >> maybe not (someone else bought them). I don't know, there can be many >> cases here. I interpret Greg's point there as in SoB statement - the >> person, not email address, certifies. > > If Bjorn owned the copyright, then yeah, 1 email would be enough. But > Linaro owned the copyright so it should be there. True for taking the authorship of patch, however SoB is not for copyright holders/ownership but to certify that one has the right to send it. Since patch was on the list, anyone can take it and send it. Everyone has such right. If another person is sending, then he needs to certify the origin with SoB. If Bjornv2 is that other person, he already certified (although with different email address). Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dp-controller.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dp-controller.yaml index f2515af8256f..a1dc3a13e1cf 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dp-controller.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dp-controller.yaml @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ properties: - qcom,sc7280-edp - qcom,sc8180x-dp - qcom,sc8180x-edp + - qcom,sc8280xp-dp + - qcom,sc8280xp-edp + - qcom,sdm845-dp - qcom,sm8350-dp reg: