> > Tested on the EAP245 v1 running the latest firmware (v1.4.0). The > > binary patch might not apply to uclited from other firmware versions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <[email protected]> > > Seems like I was overdue on a proper read of the kernel patch submission > guidelines. My understanding from the guidelines and your previous mail [1], > is that these lines aren't about the literal patch contents per se, but also > about the intention of the patch and the provided functionality. > > So the fact that the bulk of the EAP245 v1's DTS was moved to the 1- port > DTSI, shouldn't be an issue to attribute device support to Julien in this > patch, > right?
I see that differently. For me, providing device support for a device A and
using similar code for a bunch of devices B to D is a different patch.
I don't think a Signed-off-by is correct here, as Julien is _not_ an author of
your patch, as he intended to provide support for the EAP245 and not for the
1-port EAP2x5 devices.
>
> Would you consider the following appropriate for this patch?
>
> EAP245 v1 support originally implemented by Julien Dusser.
That's nice but irrelevant without proper explanation ("why is EAP245 relevant
at all").
If you really want to refer to that prior work, IMO a proper solution would be
to just add something like "Implementation of these devices is based on the
prior work of XY supporting device YZ in commit xxxxxxxxx."
Then, everybody can look up what XY has done and will see the proper authorship
in the reference.
> SoC MDIO integration, factory flashing method, and final patch by
> Sander Vanheule.
>
> Co-developed-by: Julien Dusser <[email protected]>
> Signed-of-By: Julien Dusser <[email protected]>
The initial author needs no Co-developed-by, as he is mentioned in the From
field.
From/Co-developed-by is about authorship, Signed-off-by is about legal
accountability.
The latter is one reason why you technically actually can only add Juliens
Signed-off-by if this patch is combined submission of both of you, where both
people have actually checked the final patch for correctness. If that's not the
case, it's not Co-developed-by, but Julien would be the author, and you would
have to note every single change before your Signed-off-by to make obvious
which parts are covered by his SoB and what has been changed since then and
thus is covered by your SoB.
(example for the latter may be found here:
https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/ed087cba8a8e41f76f9487caa34eff926ea8a065)
Since this appears to me to be "your" patch, and not a submission by both of
you, for me it would be more correct to just have your SoB/From: only.
If the original patch was mine, I'd actually be quite mad at you if you used my
Signed-off-by for a different submission.
Best
Adrian
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
