[RESEND 01/11] irqchip: ls-extirq: Add LS1043A, LS1088A external interrupt

[Biwen Li]

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
> > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:23 AM
> > To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux at rasmusvillemoes.dk>
> > Cc: Biwen Li (OSS) <biwen.li at oss.nxp.com>; shawnguo at kernel.org;
> > robh+dt at kernel.org; mark.rutland at arm.com; Leo Li <leoyang.li at nxp.com>;
> > Z.q. Hou <zhiqiang.hou at nxp.com>; tglx at linutronix.de;
> > jason at lakedaemon.net; devicetree at vger.kernel.org; linux-
> > kernel at vger.kernel.org; Jiafei Pan <jiafei.pan at nxp.com>; Xiaobo Xie
> > <xiaobo.xie at nxp.com>; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Biwen Li
> > <biwen.li at nxp.com>
> > Subject: Re: [RESEND 01/11] irqchip: ls-extirq: Add LS1043A, LS1088A
> > external interrupt
> >
> > On 2020-10-26 09:06, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > > On 26/10/2020 09.44, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > >> On 2020-10-26 08:01, Biwen Li wrote:
> > >>> From: Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou at nxp.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> Add an new IRQ chip declaration for LS1043A and LS1088A
> > >>> - compatible "fsl,ls1043a-extirq" for LS1043A, LS1046A
> > >>> - compatible "fsl,ls1088a-extirq" for LS1088A, LS208xA, LX216xA
> > >>
> > >> Three things:
> > >> - This commit message doesn't describe the bit_reverse change
> > >
> > > Yeah, please elaborate on that, as the RM for 1043 or 1046 doesn't
> > > mention anything about bit reversal for the scfg registers - they
> > > don't seem to have the utter nonsense that is SCFG_SCFGREVCR, but
> > > perhaps, instead of removing it, that has just become a hard-coded
> > > part of the IP.
> > >
> > > Also, IANAL etc., but
> > >
> > >>> +// Copyright 2019-2020 NXP
> > >
> > > really? Seems to be a bit of a stretch.
> > >
> > > At the very least, cc'ing the original author and only person to
> > > ever touch that file would have been appreciated.
> >
> > Huh. Well spotted. That's definitely not on.
> > NXP people, please talk to your legal department.
> 
> We do have an internal policy to require developer adding/updating NXP
> copyright on non-trivial changes.  I'm not sure if this change should be
> considered trivial, but adding copyright claim on a file without prior copyright
> claims could causing confusion like in this case.  One potential solution is to
> add a more specific description on the NXP change together with the copyright
> claim.  But maybe an easier solution is to add Rasmus your Copyright claim
> first if you are ok with it.
Yes, added a wrong Copyright.
> 
> Regards,
> Leo