Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: rockchip: Add Radxa CM5 IO Board

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 14/11/2025 11:12, Dragan Simic wrote:
> Hello Heiko,
> 
> On Friday, November 14, 2025 11:08 CET, Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 14. November 2025, 09:32:29 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit schrieb Dragan Simic:
>>> On Friday, November 14, 2025 09:24 CET, FUKAUMI Naoki <naoki@radxa.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/25 16:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 14/11/2025 08:47, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/14/25 16:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/11/2025 08:37, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/14/25 16:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/11/2025 08:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/11/2025 07:57, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/25 15:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/11/2025 06:13, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Add device tree binding documentation for the Radxa CM5 IO Board.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Link: https://dl.radxa.com/cm5/radxa_cm5_product_brief.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: FUKAUMI Naoki <naoki@radxa.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joseph Kogut <joseph.kogut@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong DCO chain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NAK, you just stolen ownership of an already posted patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Read "Changes in v6" and patches; my patches are not the same as v5.
>>>>>>>>>>> Your reply is totally inappropriate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Inappropriate is taking authorship of someone's patch, because we all
>>>>>>>>>> expect to preserve the original authorship. That's not only basic
>>>>>>>>>> decency but actually a standard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, read Joseph's reply that he wants to continue the work:
>>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMWSM7iHtAxewW4JkRqRsifVnccqeFviaCgeOyprKDr92FOurg@mail.gmail.com/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You clearly do not understand how to continue with someone's work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is still a NAK.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I still wait for justification why you took authorship of this
>>>>>>>>> patch, because to my eye you changed here nothing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what did you change HERE that you think you are the author now?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Changes in v6:
>>>>>>>> (Patch 1/3)
>>>>>>>> - Fix description; "Radxa CM5" is the correct name
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HERE, in this patch. Don't paste me hundreds of unrelated code. Write
>>>>>>> concise and precise answers/comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/AE0735A6C797CCFF+10496d73-7c0a-4884-9561-24721305a24f@radxa.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> | By the way, at some point I switched from "continuing your work" to
>>>>>> | "recreating a new one based on my current work." The results of my
>>>>>> | current work(*3) have changed significantly.
>>>>>
>>>>> So next time I will take your patch, your code, say "I recreated it" and
>>>>> submit under my authorship and for you it is fine?
>>>>
>>>> Regarding CM5 patches, I'm fine.
>>>>
>>>>> Please take Joseph's patch instead. Read submitting patches doc to
>>>>> understand which one more tag has to be added when sending somoene
>>>>> else's work.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the future, I sincerely suggest avoiding re-creating people's work
>>>>> but building on top, because you just duplicate the effort.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that you don't understand how I made efforts to build my 
>>>> work on top of Joseph's patches.
>>>
>>> Maybe a solution for this huge mess could be that Naoki submits
>>> unmodified patches from Joseph first, using the standard procedure
>>> for that, and then the additional patch(es) that improve Joseph's
>>> work?  All that in the same series.
>>
>> There is also Co-developed-by as an option.
> 
> Ah, that's what the above-described option #1 involves, but it also 
> raises some possible concerns, described in one of my responses. [1]

There are no concerns to be raised. Please read DCO. The original author
GAVE certified what is necessary, thus any person taking this work
already can you that certification. You raised some uncertainty "I'm not
sure how fair is it for someone to become responsible" which is just not
right here. It is completely fair and completely correct from DCO point
of view, because the certification was already provided. Also from
certification point, there is no "weaker" form. Either you certify or not.

Best regards,
Krzysztof