Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:13:17 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     William Qiu <william.qiu@starfivetech.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND v1 2/2] riscv: dts: starfive: Add spi node for JH7110 SoC
Message-ID: <41c905da-ae3e-4acb-bbfa-d33d3306824d@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20230704092200.85401-1-william.qiu@starfivetech.com>
 <20230704092200.85401-3-william.qiu@starfivetech.com>
 <7f3b600d-d315-22d6-b987-eabfe1b04fdf@linaro.org>
 <eba1e868-6371-42fe-91be-bcbee54d1aff@sirena.org.uk>
 <4afd90d9-f1bd-f40d-1c79-50fef1406ab7@linaro.org>
 <6307c5b2-64d2-405f-b1a5-696d4184f6a0@sirena.org.uk>
 <a8c1a5e7-9938-bf6c-6bb7-6c1e4d8ce08b@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8SqqqwgXKD0N3HXB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a8c1a5e7-9938-bf6c-6bb7-6c1e4d8ce08b@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk


--8SqqqwgXKD0N3HXB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 03:21:30PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/07/2023 15:16, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:27:57PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> >> Also see:
> >> "every Co-developed-by: must be immediately
> >> followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author."

> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L467

> > Oh, that seems unhelpful especially with it not lining up with the DCO.

> I assume the intention was here that if I attribute some co-author with
> Co-developed-by, then I know that author, therefore I expect author to
> explicitly participate in DCO chain.

Why?  They're not the one sending the patch out, nor are they relying on
someone else having certified anything.

> Otherwise, just drop the Co-developed-by.

It seems separately useful.

--8SqqqwgXKD0N3HXB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmSkKP0ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9BUCQf+MakDSushGvfaRHCWXKX9k0RiV5f+NZvtmqvrVE86MgvfZXWos/vS+mTd
KY3WC115btHDG+rP5TdrtREdf/CKBvuZ7f/xb7CuzNrkn9cO4luF7qZKb48jqqQY
+66UT0zca96GKUpT2RQ1HR9sMg6umR7qj2RezJOXLBgHMBwAq6aofIIGVcj1tkzi
wKcOeluQX1g96OJjcxo/Kj42y/5kQdhMj6GmbVRoRiiMX2MiXcLbIMh15gtYgfmU
KaP24Oeb9skgN6X8/1hja6swCSqQD2VRbX+aPSYyVncd9uDMx0Ya+7cP14Ex+W8u
37T11N/kr/NhVOEyHpdjM628LNblHQ==
=+ena
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8SqqqwgXKD0N3HXB--