[RFC PATCH v2 4/6] ath79: support for TP-Link EAP245 v1

mail at adrianschmutzler.de mail at adrianschmutzler.de
Mon Jul 20 16:54:55 EDT 2020

> > Tested on the EAP245 v1 running the latest firmware (v1.4.0). The
> > binary patch might not apply to uclited from other firmware versions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander at svanheule.net>
> Seems like I was overdue on a proper read of the kernel patch submission
> guidelines. My understanding from the guidelines and your previous mail [1],
> is that these lines aren't about the literal patch contents per se, but also
> about the intention of the patch and the provided functionality.
> So the fact that the bulk of the EAP245 v1's DTS was moved to the 1- port
> DTSI, shouldn't be an issue to attribute device support to Julien in this patch,
> right?

I see that differently. For me, providing device support for a device A and using similar code for a bunch of devices B to D is a different patch.

I don't think a Signed-off-by is correct here, as Julien is _not_ an author of your patch, as he intended to provide support for the EAP245 and not for the 1-port EAP2x5 devices.

> Would you consider the following appropriate for this patch?
>    EAP245 v1 support originally implemented by Julien Dusser.

That's nice but irrelevant without proper explanation ("why is EAP245 relevant at all").

If you really want to refer to that prior work, IMO a proper solution would be to just add something like "Implementation of these devices is based on the prior work of XY supporting device YZ in commit xxxxxxxxx."

Then, everybody can look up what XY has done and will see the proper authorship in the reference.

>    SoC MDIO integration, factory flashing method, and final patch by
>    Sander Vanheule.
>    Co-developed-by: Julien Dusser <julien.dusser at free.fr>
>    Signed-of-By: Julien Dusser <julien.dusser at free.fr>

The initial author needs no Co-developed-by, as he is mentioned in the From field.
From/Co-developed-by is about authorship, Signed-off-by is about legal accountability.

The latter is one reason why you technically actually can only add Juliens Signed-off-by if this patch is combined submission of both of you, where both people have actually checked the final patch for correctness. If that's not the case, it's not Co-developed-by, but Julien would be the author, and you would have to note every single change before your Signed-off-by to make obvious which parts are covered by his SoB and what has been changed since then and thus is covered by your SoB.
(example for the latter may be found here: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/ed087cba8a8e41f76f9487caa34eff926ea8a065)

Since this appears to me to be "your" patch, and not a submission by both of you, for me it would be more correct to just have your SoB/From: only.
If the original patch was mine, I'd actually be quite mad at you if you used my Signed-off-by for a different submission.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/attachments/20200720/97b10e99/attachment.sig>

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list