[U-Boot] [PATCH 13/60] ARM: tegra: sort some board file include directives

Stephen Warren
2016-04-25T19:54:10Z

On 04/24/2016 04:20 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen,
>
> In message <1461099580-3866-14-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>>
>> --- a/board/avionic-design/common/tamonten-ng.c
>> +++ b/board/avionic-design/common/tamonten-ng.c
>> @@ -1,18 +1,19 @@
>> /*
>> * (C) Copyright 2013
>> * Avionic Design GmbH <www.avionic-design.de>
>> + * Copyright (c) 2016, NVIDIA CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
>> *
>> * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>> */
>>
>> #include <common.h>
>> #include <dm.h>
>> +#include <i2c.h>
>> +#include <asm/gpio.h>
>> #include <asm/arch/pinmux.h>
>> #include <asm/arch/gp_padctrl.h>
>> #include <asm/arch/gpio.h>
>> -#include <asm/gpio.h>
>> #include "pinmux-config-tamonten-ng.h"
>> -#include <i2c.h>
>>
>> #define PMU_I2C_ADDRESS 0x2D
>
> Do you really think that moving around two lines of code is a big
> enough creative achievement to justify adding a copyright note on it?

My understanding is yes; I edited the file in a non-trival way and so
NVIDIA's copyright applies to those portions. I'd consider whitespace or
spelling fixes to be trivial, but not much else. I believe there is
creative achievement in cleaning up the code-base this way.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who
could argue either way, perhaps depending on who pays them:-)

> I'm sorry, but I really dislike
> the way how it - intentionally or unintentionally - appears to be
> driven by the attempt to increase Nvidias presence in copyright
> claims.

FWIW, the purpose is to create a cleaner separate between the core Tegra
SoC support code and board/driver code, to reduce their current rather
tight coupling. The copyright changes are just correct application of
the process of editing files; something I admit we/I've been a bit lax
about in the past.

> This seems not fair to me, and I would like to ask you to rework this
> whole patch set and be a little less aggressive in copyright claims.

I don't see what's unfair either way. As far as I'm concerned, the
copyright notices are simply due to my following the process I must
follow. I don't believe the presence of NVIDIA's copyright notices takes
anything away from anyone else, and as I mentioned above, they seem
valid to me.