[PATCH v4] watchdog: Add Broadcom BCM2835 watchdog timer driver
lkundrak at v3.sk
Tue Jun 18 12:50:41 EDT 2013
On Sun, 2013-05-26 at 16:22 +0200, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> Hi Lubomir,
> > On 03/27/2013 10:40 AM, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > > This adds a driver for watchdog timer hardware present on Broadcom BCM2835 SoC,
> > > used in Raspberry Pi and Roku 2 devices.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dom Cobley <popcornmix at gmail.com>
> > Those two s-o-b lines should be swapped, since if Dom did sign off on
> > any part of this patch, he did it before you did.
> > That said...
> > I wonder if it's actually appropriate to include Dom's s-o-b here, since
> > I don't think he really wrote this patch itself. I think you mentioned
> > that you hadn't use much of the downstream driver except for some defines?
> > To be clear, I mentioned the existence of the S-o-b line downstream
> > simply to demonstrate that the commits you were getting information from
> > had correctly followed the process described in
> > Documentation/SubmittingPatches, and so it was OK to use that
> > information while creating a GPL'd driver.
> > So there are a couple of ways that this patch could have been created:
> > 1) You took the downstream commit itself, cherry-picked it into the
> > upstream kernel, modified it to suit upstream, and then submitted that.
> > The modifications might be extensive, such as renaming the file,
> > removing parts of the code that the upstream watchdog core now handles,
> > adding some new features, fixing bugs, cleanup, etc.; whatever is needed
> > to upstream the patch.
> > In this case, I believe it would be appropriate to maintain any S-o-b
> > lines from the original downstream commit, and add yours. But, I believe
> > you should also (a) maintain the git author field from the original
> > downstream commit (b) include a list of the changes you made to the
> > patch in the commit description, so you can be blamed for them rather
> > than the original author:-)
> > 2) You read the downstream commit for information, but created a
> > completely new driver for the upstream kernel, using the downstream
> > driver just as a reference. In this case, I believe it's fine for the
> > git author field to be you, and for the only s-o-b line present to be
> > yours, since you really did write the patch from scratch. However, you
> > should credit the downstream work in the (c) header and/or commit
> > description.
> > This current patch sees to be a slight hybrid of both approaches (you're
> > listed as the git author, but have included Dom's s-o-b line on a patch
> > I don't think he created, and wasn't directly derived from one he created).
> > I'm not sure if I'm being too picky. I guess I'll leave it up to Wim Van
> > Sebroeck, since he's the watchdog maintainer and would be the person who
> > applies this patch.
> Can you create a patch v5 with yourselve as author and add the necessary (c)
> and references in it so that I can do the final review? (That is if situation
> 2 is indeed the case. If however it is situation 1 then we should get the
> original code and have that as a patch and then add a second patch with your
I'm still not sure what to do. For most part, the driver is written from
scratch, since the original one was not utilizing recent enough
frameworks (such as watchdog-core or device tree bindings). Thus the
patch against the original driver would not make any sense at all.
On the other hand, I've referred to the original driver for hardware
information and copied a couple of defines as they are (such as
SECS_TO_WDOG_TICKS), thus I figured out it's a required to include the
original driver's sign-off and copyright information.
Thus neither 1) nor 2) is the case, and I can't figure out myself what
needs to be changed at this point. I'm wondering if you could help me
Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>
More information about the linux-rpi-kernel