Re: [PATCH v2 04/14] wifi: ath10k: snoc: support powering on the device via pwrseq

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 16/01/2026 16:18, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 1/15/2026 11:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 15/01/2026 23:30, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2026 5:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> The WCN39xx family of WiFi/BT chips incorporates a simple PMU, spreading
>>>> voltages over internal rails. Implement support for using powersequencer
>>>> for this family of ATH10k devices in addition to using regulators.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.h |  2 ++
>>>
>>> My automation flagged:
>>> * drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c has no QTI copyright
>>> * drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.h has no QTI copyright
>>> * 2 copyright issues
>>>
>>> I'll add these manually in my 'pending' branch
>>>
>>
>> And why is this a problem? You are not here to impose Qualcomm rules, bu
>> care about Linux kernel. You cannot add copyrights based on what exactly?
> 
> I am a maintainer that is paid by Qualcomm to perform that role, and hence I
> have a duty to enforce the legal guidance from Qualcomm when it comes to
> contributions from other Qualcomm employees.

No, it's not your duty to enforce rules from some other departments or
business units. Especially not without agreement of that person. You
cannot just add copyrights to other people's commits just because you
think that such copyrights should be there. Only the copyright owner -
which you did not identify here and email address of contributor does
not imply that (you don't even know what work contract a person has) -
can add such copyrights.

Best regards,
Krzysztof