Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-26 Thread Tom Rini 
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:21:08AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/25/2016 06:14 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:34:55PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>On 04/25/2016 05:26 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:11:16PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/25/2016 05:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen Warren,
> 
> In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
> >>>[snip]
> >Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure 
> >the
> >NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, 
> >hence
> >why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time 
> >recently.
> >If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict 
> >attention
> >to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of
> >copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.
> >>>
> >>>I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright
> >>>notices correct is important.  Now, what do you mean by would be
> >>>smaller?
> >>
> >>Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with
> >>licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in
> >>copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct
> >>information into new files when creating new ones (often by just
> >>cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done
> >>that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination
> >>is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message,
> >>and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't
> >>include an edit to those messages since they'd already be
> >>up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that;
> >>it's just my gut instinct.
> >
> >Right, OK.  So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to
> >files you haven't touched this year yet?
> 
> Yes, I'm sure there's a mix.
> >>>
> >>>OK.  And I assume you're globbing on file paths to check / update?
> >>>Doing you can do 'git log --since=-01-01--12-31' to find the
> >>>first/last commits in a given year, git diff a..b | diffstat > Y.txt to
> >>>get a diffstat and check your numbers vs that.  This doesn't feel like
> >>>an undue burden on making sure copyright stuff is year-correct for
> >>>last-touch.
> >>
> >>Well, by "yet" I assumed you mean "before this patch set". There are
> >>no changes in the patch set that do nothing but edit/add a copyright
> >>notice without making other changes. The only edits to copyrights in
> >>this series are because I've edited files for the purpose behind the
> >>patch, and then have updated the copyright while doing so.
> >>
> >>What I did was:
> >>a) Make all the changes.
> >>b) Go through all the patches with "git rebase -i", get the list of
> >>files edited in the patch, and ensure the copyright date reflected
> >>the edit made in that patch.
> >
> >OK.  This should make any quick sanity checks easier, rather than
> >harder.  Generate the lists, diffstat your series, for F in series, grep
> >-q year-list && echo touched $F;done
> >
> >>BTW, while code re-org is not the most involved of coding, I don't
> >>see a reason to make developers decide legal issues such as what
> >>amounts to a change that's large enough to change the copyright
> >>date, or add a copyright header. The rule should be simple and
> >>unambiguous (edit a file -> change the copyright); anything else is
> >>asking for different people to argue over interpretation, which just
> >>everybody's wastes time. Let's leave that to lawyers and just deal
> >>with code.
> >
> >I agree in spirit, with a caveat about meeting a significance threshold.
> >I think you need to push back on your legal department if they are
> >asking that every change requires a copyright notice, regardless of
> >length or complexity.  I _cannot_ start having patches conflict because
> >the contents are fine but now I have to fixup the copyright notices
> >added since the patch was generated,
> 
> I'm not sure why. Let's say the two conflicting patches are both
> unambiguously significant works, by two different people/entities.
> Surely there's no issue with the copyright notices both being
> added/updated in that case? If so, then the only difference is the
> volume of conflicts. Volume doesn't seem a great argument since it's
> not a problem with the core issue itself.

The problem here is that much of this series is not making unambiguously
significant changes.  I do not have a problem with (but maybe I need to
chat with the Software Freedom Conservancy folks more) adding /

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-26 Thread Wolfgang Denk 
Dear Stephen,

In message <571ea99f.7030...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> BTW, while code re-org is not the most involved of coding, I don't see a 
> reason to make developers decide legal issues such as what amounts to a 
> change that's large enough to change the copyright date, or add a 
> copyright header. The rule should be simple and unambiguous (edit a file 
> -> change the copyright); anything else is asking for different people 
> to argue over interpretation, which just everybody's wastes time. Let's 
> leave that to lawyers and just deal with code.

There is no simple rule. Adding a copyright header means you claim
your (or your company's) copyright, i. e. you are referring to legal
rules, which ar inherently non-trivial. even more so, as this is a
multi-national project - even though nternation copyright laws are
pretty much similar worldwide (there are international treaties like
the Berne convention), there may still be differences.

One area where (to the best of my knowledge - IANAL) there appears to
be agreement is that you must meet some "Creativity Requirement" with
the work you created to make it copyrightable at all.

Moving two include lines around is not really creative, and I feel sad
that we have to go  into such lengthy discussions here.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,  Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
A good aphorism is too hard for the tooth of time, and  is  not  worn
away  by  all  the  centuries,  although  it serves as food for every
epoch.  - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
  _Miscellaneous Maxims and Opinions_ no. 168
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-26 Thread Stephen Warren 

On 04/25/2016 06:14 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:34:55PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

On 04/25/2016 05:26 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:11:16PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

On 04/25/2016 05:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

Dear Stephen Warren,

In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:

[snip]

Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the
NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence
why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently.
If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention
to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of
copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.


I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright
notices correct is important.  Now, what do you mean by would be
smaller?


Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with
licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in
copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct
information into new files when creating new ones (often by just
cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done
that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination
is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message,
and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't
include an edit to those messages since they'd already be
up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that;
it's just my gut instinct.


Right, OK.  So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to
files you haven't touched this year yet?


Yes, I'm sure there's a mix.


OK.  And I assume you're globbing on file paths to check / update?
Doing you can do 'git log --since=-01-01--12-31' to find the
first/last commits in a given year, git diff a..b | diffstat > Y.txt to
get a diffstat and check your numbers vs that.  This doesn't feel like
an undue burden on making sure copyright stuff is year-correct for
last-touch.


Well, by "yet" I assumed you mean "before this patch set". There are
no changes in the patch set that do nothing but edit/add a copyright
notice without making other changes. The only edits to copyrights in
this series are because I've edited files for the purpose behind the
patch, and then have updated the copyright while doing so.

What I did was:
a) Make all the changes.
b) Go through all the patches with "git rebase -i", get the list of
files edited in the patch, and ensure the copyright date reflected
the edit made in that patch.


OK.  This should make any quick sanity checks easier, rather than
harder.  Generate the lists, diffstat your series, for F in series, grep
-q year-list && echo touched $F;done


BTW, while code re-org is not the most involved of coding, I don't
see a reason to make developers decide legal issues such as what
amounts to a change that's large enough to change the copyright
date, or add a copyright header. The rule should be simple and
unambiguous (edit a file -> change the copyright); anything else is
asking for different people to argue over interpretation, which just
everybody's wastes time. Let's leave that to lawyers and just deal
with code.


I agree in spirit, with a caveat about meeting a significance threshold.
I think you need to push back on your legal department if they are
asking that every change requires a copyright notice, regardless of
length or complexity.  I _cannot_ start having patches conflict because
the contents are fine but now I have to fixup the copyright notices
added since the patch was generated,


I'm not sure why. Let's say the two conflicting patches are both 
unambiguously significant works, by two different people/entities. 
Surely there's no issue with the copyright notices both being 
added/updated in that case? If so, then the only difference is the 
volume of conflicts. Volume doesn't seem a great argument since it's not 
a problem with the core issue itself.

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-25 Thread Tom Rini 
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:34:55PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/25/2016 05:26 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:11:16PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>On 04/25/2016 05:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >>Dear Stephen Warren,
> >>
> >>In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
> >[snip]
> >>>Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the
> >>>NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence
> >>>why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time 
> >>>recently.
> >>>If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention
> >>>to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of
> >>>copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.
> >
> >I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright
> >notices correct is important.  Now, what do you mean by would be
> >smaller?
> 
> Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with
> licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in
> copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct
> information into new files when creating new ones (often by just
> cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done
> that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination
> is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message,
> and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't
> include an edit to those messages since they'd already be
> up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that;
> it's just my gut instinct.
> >>>
> >>>Right, OK.  So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to
> >>>files you haven't touched this year yet?
> >>
> >>Yes, I'm sure there's a mix.
> >
> >OK.  And I assume you're globbing on file paths to check / update?
> >Doing you can do 'git log --since=-01-01--12-31' to find the
> >first/last commits in a given year, git diff a..b | diffstat > Y.txt to
> >get a diffstat and check your numbers vs that.  This doesn't feel like
> >an undue burden on making sure copyright stuff is year-correct for
> >last-touch.
> 
> Well, by "yet" I assumed you mean "before this patch set". There are
> no changes in the patch set that do nothing but edit/add a copyright
> notice without making other changes. The only edits to copyrights in
> this series are because I've edited files for the purpose behind the
> patch, and then have updated the copyright while doing so.
> 
> What I did was:
> a) Make all the changes.
> b) Go through all the patches with "git rebase -i", get the list of
> files edited in the patch, and ensure the copyright date reflected
> the edit made in that patch.

OK.  This should make any quick sanity checks easier, rather than
harder.  Generate the lists, diffstat your series, for F in series, grep
-q year-list && echo touched $F;done

> BTW, while code re-org is not the most involved of coding, I don't
> see a reason to make developers decide legal issues such as what
> amounts to a change that's large enough to change the copyright
> date, or add a copyright header. The rule should be simple and
> unambiguous (edit a file -> change the copyright); anything else is
> asking for different people to argue over interpretation, which just
> everybody's wastes time. Let's leave that to lawyers and just deal
> with code.

I agree in spirit, with a caveat about meeting a significance threshold.
I think you need to push back on your legal department if they are
asking that every change requires a copyright notice, regardless of
length or complexity.  I _cannot_ start having patches conflict because
the contents are fine but now I have to fixup the copyright notices
added since the patch was generated, and then I suppose toss in my own
copyright too, because now I've made some change to the file.  Since you
mentioned the kernel, I just popped open git log -p in the kernel and I
do not see a flood of "made a change, add/update copyright".

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-25 Thread Stephen Warren 

On 04/25/2016 05:26 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:11:16PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

On 04/25/2016 05:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

Dear Stephen Warren,

In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:

[snip]

Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the
NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence
why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently.
If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention
to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of
copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.


I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright
notices correct is important.  Now, what do you mean by would be
smaller?


Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with
licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in
copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct
information into new files when creating new ones (often by just
cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done
that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination
is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message,
and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't
include an edit to those messages since they'd already be
up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that;
it's just my gut instinct.


Right, OK.  So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to
files you haven't touched this year yet?


Yes, I'm sure there's a mix.


OK.  And I assume you're globbing on file paths to check / update?
Doing you can do 'git log --since=-01-01--12-31' to find the
first/last commits in a given year, git diff a..b | diffstat > Y.txt to
get a diffstat and check your numbers vs that.  This doesn't feel like
an undue burden on making sure copyright stuff is year-correct for
last-touch.


Well, by "yet" I assumed you mean "before this patch set". There are no 
changes in the patch set that do nothing but edit/add a copyright notice 
without making other changes. The only edits to copyrights in this 
series are because I've edited files for the purpose behind the patch, 
and then have updated the copyright while doing so.


What I did was:
a) Make all the changes.
b) Go through all the patches with "git rebase -i", get the list of 
files edited in the patch, and ensure the copyright date reflected the 
edit made in that patch.


BTW, while code re-org is not the most involved of coding, I don't see a 
reason to make developers decide legal issues such as what amounts to a 
change that's large enough to change the copyright date, or add a 
copyright header. The rule should be simple and unambiguous (edit a file 
-> change the copyright); anything else is asking for different people 
to argue over interpretation, which just everybody's wastes time. Let's 
leave that to lawyers and just deal with code.

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-25 Thread Tom Rini 
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:11:16PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/25/2016 05:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen Warren,
> 
> In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
> >>>[snip]
> >Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the
> >NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence
> >why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently.
> >If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention
> >to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of
> >copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.
> >>>
> >>>I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright
> >>>notices correct is important.  Now, what do you mean by would be
> >>>smaller?
> >>
> >>Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with
> >>licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in
> >>copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct
> >>information into new files when creating new ones (often by just
> >>cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done
> >>that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination
> >>is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message,
> >>and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't
> >>include an edit to those messages since they'd already be
> >>up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that;
> >>it's just my gut instinct.
> >
> >Right, OK.  So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to
> >files you haven't touched this year yet?
> 
> Yes, I'm sure there's a mix.

OK.  And I assume you're globbing on file paths to check / update?
Doing you can do 'git log --since=-01-01--12-31' to find the
first/last commits in a given year, git diff a..b | diffstat > Y.txt to
get a diffstat and check your numbers vs that.  This doesn't feel like
an undue burden on making sure copyright stuff is year-correct for
last-touch.

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-25 Thread Stephen Warren 

On 04/25/2016 05:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

Dear Stephen Warren,

In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:

[snip]

Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the
NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence
why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently.
If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention
to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of
copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.


I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright
notices correct is important.  Now, what do you mean by would be
smaller?


Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with
licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in
copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct
information into new files when creating new ones (often by just
cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done
that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination
is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message,
and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't
include an edit to those messages since they'd already be
up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that;
it's just my gut instinct.


Right, OK.  So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to
files you haven't touched this year yet?


Yes, I'm sure there's a mix.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-25 Thread Tom Rini 
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >>Dear Stephen Warren,
> >>
> >>In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
> >[snip]
> >>>Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the
> >>>NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence
> >>>why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently.
> >>>If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention
> >>>to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of
> >>>copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.
> >
> >I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright
> >notices correct is important.  Now, what do you mean by would be
> >smaller?
> 
> Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with
> licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in
> copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct
> information into new files when creating new ones (often by just
> cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done
> that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination
> is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message,
> and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't
> include an edit to those messages since they'd already be
> up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that;
> it's just my gut instinct.

Right, OK.  So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to
files you haven't touched this year yet?

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-25 Thread Stephen Warren 

On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

Dear Stephen Warren,

In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:

[snip]

Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the
NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence
why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently.
If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention
to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of
copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.


I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright
notices correct is important.  Now, what do you mean by would be
smaller?


Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with 
licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in copyright 
notices when changing files, or to put the correct information into new 
files when creating new ones (often by just cutting/pasting some other 
file with similar issues). If we had done that 100% correctly in every 
commit across history, my inclination is that more files would already 
have an NVIDIA copyright message, and/or already have 2016 in the date, 
and hence this series wouldn't include an edit to those messages since 
they'd already be up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to 
confirm that; it's just my gut instinct.

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-25 Thread Tom Rini 
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen Warren,
> 
> In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
[snip]
> > Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the 
> > NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence 
> > why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently. 
> > If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention 
> > to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of 
> > copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.

I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright
notices correct is important.  Now, what do you mean by would be
smaller?

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-25 Thread Wolfgang Denk 
Dear Stephen Warren,

In message <571e733a.1060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
> On 04/24/2016 04:20 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Dear Stephen,
> >
> > In message <1461099580-3866-3-git-send-email-swar...@wwwdotorg.org> you 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>   /*
> >> + * Copyright 2011-2016 NVIDIA Corporation
> >>* (C) Copyright 2009 SAMSUNG Electronics
> >>* Minkyu Kang 
> >>* Jaehoon Chung 
> >> - * Portions Copyright 2011-2015 NVIDIA Corporation
> >>*
> >>* SPDX-License-Identifier:  GPL-2.0+
> >>*/
> >
> > Both the change of the position of the copyright note and the
> > rewording contain a subtle but still significant change of meaning.
> >
> > Now it seems as if Nvidia was the major copyright holder.  Is this
> > intentional?
> 
> I was not aware that the order actually implied anything. I would 
> imagine the copyright dates and "git blame" output were more relevant 
> since they pin-point specific changes, whereas copyright headers don't 
> have the detail to convey the whole picture.

Well, just read the text before and after the patch, and let the
meaning sink in...

> In this case, both "git log" and "git blame" certainly show that NVIDIA 
> is the primary author of this code. I deliberately removed "Portions" 
> because it was something uncommon and seems inaccurate. I don't recall 
> why I changed the order; probably because I was editing a lot of files 
> and just happened to paste the message there. I imagine the Samsung 
> copyright notice is only there because the general structure of the file 
> (set of functions implemented) was based on an existing driver, rather 
> than because any of the non-boilerplate code was written by them.

I did not check this, and I don't intend to do so.  you may actually
be right, and your modification may be perfectly OK.

But from just reading the patch, it leaves a stale aftertaste.

> Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the 
> NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence 
> why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently. 
> If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention 
> to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of 
> copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.

It is difficult for any outside party to verify this.  I feel such
changes require a lot of tact, and global edits are probably not a
good idea.   You know that I don't post very often lately, so you can
imagine that this must have stirred me a bit.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,  Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
NOTE: The  Most  Fundamental  Particles  in  This  Product  Are  Held
Together  by  a  "Gluing" Force About Which Little is Currently Known
and Whose Adhesive Power Can Therefore Not Be Permanently Guaranteed.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-25 Thread Stephen Warren 

On 04/24/2016 04:20 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

Dear Stephen,

In message <1461099580-3866-3-git-send-email-swar...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:


  /*
+ * Copyright 2011-2016 NVIDIA Corporation
   * (C) Copyright 2009 SAMSUNG Electronics
   * Minkyu Kang 
   * Jaehoon Chung 
- * Portions Copyright 2011-2015 NVIDIA Corporation
   *
   * SPDX-License-Identifier:   GPL-2.0+
   */


Both the change of the position of the copyright note and the
rewording contain a subtle but still significant change of meaning.

Now it seems as if Nvidia was the major copyright holder.  Is this
intentional?


I was not aware that the order actually implied anything. I would 
imagine the copyright dates and "git blame" output were more relevant 
since they pin-point specific changes, whereas copyright headers don't 
have the detail to convey the whole picture.


In this case, both "git log" and "git blame" certainly show that NVIDIA 
is the primary author of this code. I deliberately removed "Portions" 
because it was something uncommon and seems inaccurate. I don't recall 
why I changed the order; probably because I was editing a lot of files 
and just happened to paste the message there. I imagine the Samsung 
copyright notice is only there because the general structure of the file 
(set of functions implemented) was based on an existing driver, rather 
than because any of the non-boilerplate code was written by them.


Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the 
NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence 
why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently. 
If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention 
to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of 
copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-24 Thread Wolfgang Denk 
Dear Stephen,

In message <1461099580-3866-3-git-send-email-swar...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
> 
>  /*
> + * Copyright 2011-2016 NVIDIA Corporation
>   * (C) Copyright 2009 SAMSUNG Electronics
>   * Minkyu Kang 
>   * Jaehoon Chung 
> - * Portions Copyright 2011-2015 NVIDIA Corporation
>   *
>   * SPDX-License-Identifier:  GPL-2.0+
>   */

Both the change of the position of the copyright note and the
rewording contain a subtle but still significant change of meaning.

Now it seems as if Nvidia was the major copyright holder.  Is this
intentional?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,  Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that the  design  must  proceed
from  one  mind,  or  from  a  very small number of agreeing resonant
minds.   - Frederick Brooks Jr., "The Mythical Man Month" 
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/60] mmc: tegra: move pad init into MMC driver

2016-04-20 Thread Simon Glass 
On 19 April 2016 at 14:58, Stephen Warren  wrote:
> From: Stephen Warren 
>
> The initialization performed by this code is SoC-specific not board-
> specific. It also solely touches MMC controller registers. As such, it
> should be part of the MMC driver itself. Move it there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren 
> ---
>  arch/arm/include/asm/arch-tegra/tegra_mmc.h |  2 --
>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/board2.c| 29 --
>  drivers/mmc/tegra_mmc.c | 32 
> +++--
>  3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Simon Glass 
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot