Re: [PATCH 0/6] serial ports: add ability to suppress raising DTR & RTS on open

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 08:05:00AM -0800, Mychaela Falconia wrote:
> Greg K-H wrote:
> 
> > To ignore the public, accepted, standard is to become an operating
> > system that does not follow the standard, which would not be a good
> > thing at all.
> 
> So is FreeBSD 13.x a bad OS then, because it offers an *option* of
> suppressing this particular standard-mandated behaviour?

I never said that, please do not be disengenous, that will only get you
added to people's email filters to be ignored.

> > Again, that is the standard, why wouldn't you want to do that?  To not
> > do that would be to break interoperability with millions of devices out
> > there (remember modems?)
> 
> I don't need to "remember" modems, I use them almost every day in my
> test lab - but none of my proposed patch versions (nor FreeBSD's recent
> CNO_RTSDTR feature addition) break interoperability with anything,
> instead both FreeBSD's solution (for their OS) and my proposed Linux
> patches merely provide an *option* for more specialized hw devices
> that require different handling.

That's fine, but again, you were ranting against the existing standard
as if that was the thing that is wrong and broken here.  Not your
one-off hardware implementation that does not follow the existing
standard.  Please read the context you cut out.

> > > The solution implemented in FreeBSD relies on a feature of that OS
> > > which does not exist in Linux: initial-state devices.
> >
> > Linux dropped those a long time ago for good reasons, let's not revisit
> > that design decision again please.
> 
> Dropped?  Are you saying that Linux once had them at some point in the
> past?

Yes we had much the same thing, but they might have worked a bit
differently.  Check the 2.2 kernel days or earlier.

> > From what I recall with the original patch series, Johan is the author
> > of these, not you.  Rebasing and forwarding on is great, but please
> > never drop original authorship of patches, that's just rude, and in
> > some cases, ripe for legal worries.
> 
> In the case of the 3 patches which originate from Johan (1/6, 2/6 and
> 4/6), I submitted them with the following attribution:
> 
> From: me
> [...]
> Co-developed-by: Johan
> Signed-off-by: Johan
> Signed-off-by: me
> 
> My reading of Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst told me
> this was the correct protocol - but if I got it wrong, what is the
> correct way then?  Specifically, what is the correct protocol when
> (in this chronological order):

"From:" would be from Johan as he wrote the commit.

thanks,

greg k-h