Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: dts: add support for NXP i.MX8MP FRDM board

[Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:14 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2025 10:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 12/11/2025 09:15, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 2:49 PM Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 1:50 PM Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Daniel,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 5:45 AM Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In addition to that, Rogerio please read:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At this moment I think you should keep the original author of the
> >>>>> patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right, but NXP makes a total mess with authorship.
> >>>
> >>> I cannot disagree with you on this, let me clarify it internally with
> >>> NXP colleagues
> >>> and sort everything out.
> >>
> >> Hi Fabio & Rogerio,
> >>
> >> Checked internally and to track the correct authorship and development work
> >> here is how NXP would prefer to get credit.
> >
> > Sorry, but individual contributors do not need to give any credits to
> > NXP. If NXP wanted to sent the patches to have credit, they would do it.
> >
> > Did sending happened?
> >
> > If not, then any contributor is rightful to take the patches from
> > downstream and send them only, ONLY with their authorship. That's what
> > DCO allows and that's what established practice as well.
> >
> > NXP had a chance to upstream. When they decided not to, they forfeit any
> > rights to claim they want any authorship.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> #Use git commit --amend --author="Xiaofeng Wei <xiaofeng.wei@nxp.com>"
> >
> > NAK, there is no single patch like that from above author:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=f%3Axiaofeng.wei%40nxp.com
> >
> > Remember, downstream code does not matter. Does not exist.
> >
> >
>
>
> ... and because last two months there were two or three cases where
> vendor companies bullied individual contributors, I will be quite strict
> about that. Vendor company does not receive any authorship on patches
> sent by independent contributors which the vendor NEVER submitted,
> unless author really wants that. But I will treat any such insisting on
> authorship by vendor like NXP as bullying and working AGAINST the community.

I'm sorry that people use "bully" in this context. We are just trying
to help with
the limited time we have and create a friendly environment around NXP
upstream support.

We (NXP) immensely  appreciate individual contributions from everyone.

We need to be fair, the v1 of this patchset was taken from NXP
downstream without
respecting the Developer Certificate of Origin.

E.g there were commits pulled in from our internal tree without
keeping the S-o-B tags.
As I said keeping the original author is a sign of respecting the
initial work of NXP developers
and a recommendation from NXP.

What is your suggestion on moving on with this? Would keeping the
authorship from Rogerio
and adding S-o-B and C-d-b tags as above work for everyone?


Daniel.