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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 16/01/2026 17:41, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 05:08:58PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> In this particular usecase Jeff has enough knowledge about me and my
> working place. I will have to resend the series anyway, but otherwise it
> was perfectly fine for him to correct the copyright.

Fine, but please do not add copyrights yourself to any of my code. It's
fine to point is a reviewing comment and expect clarifications on my
side, I don't find changing people's code and adding there copyrights as
right way.

Best regards,
Krzysztof