Re: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: palmas: Add power off control

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 08/01/2013 02:47 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> On 07/31/2013 03:56 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Bill Huang wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hook up "pm_power_off" to palmas power off routine if there is DT
>>>> property "ti,system-power-controller" defined, so platform which is
>>>> powered by this regulator can be powered off properly.
>>>>
>>>> Based on work by:
>>>> Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@nvidia.com>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bill Huang <bilhuang@nvidia.com>
>>>> cc: Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> Please put the 'Cc:' (not 'cc:') above the SoBs, then drop the "Based
>>> on work by:" and replace with:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bill Huang <bilhuang@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> This insinuates that the original patch was crated by Mallikarjun.
>>
>> That advice may not be correct. Did Mallikarjun actually create *this*
>> patch? More likely, this patch was based on an equivalent change to some
>> other PMIC, and Bill just applied the same technique to this other
>> driver.
> 
> Yes, I agree with this, and I'm sure there is a place for "Based on
> work by:" or "Originally authored by:" tags, but in general, I think
> the SoBs can paint a pretty good picture.
> 
> For example, if this patch is simply using techniques which already
> exist in other drivers, I would personally not mention it in the
> commit message. A massive percentage of kernel code has been
> influenced by already existing implementations. Not much truly new and
> unique kernel code enters the kernel these days.
> 
>> If Mallikarjun really did write this patch, then the git author
>> field should also be set to Mallikarjun not Bill.
> 
> That's not how I'm lead to believe it works. I am under the impression
> that if you take an already existing patch and upstream it with little
> changes, then you keep the original creator's authorship and apply
> your SoB before sending.

Yes.

> Whereas if you have make considerable (down
> to perception) changes to the patch, then you may adopt authorship. To
> credit the efforts of the original author in this case I would advise
> to keep the first SoB. Providing they agree with the changes of course.

I'm not sure about this. I've certainly made significant changes then
still been asked to maintain the original authorship. There is plenty of
opportunity to list the changes you made in the free-form commit
description, or for smaller changes, to inline the list into the final
tag paragraph.

Either way, this situation is quite unlikely to apply to this simple patch.

But anyway, Bill knows the exact history of the patch and can presumably
choose the correct approach.