Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] clk: qcom: dispcc-eliza: Add Eliza display clock controller support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 18/03/2026 14:46, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 12:36:24PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/03/2026 12:32, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 3/18/26 12:13 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/2026 11:48, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> On 3/18/26 11:39 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> Add a driver for the display clock controller on Qualcomm Eliza SoC,
>>>>>> which is copied from SM8750 driver plus changes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Additional DT_HDMI_PHY_PLL_CLK clock input,
>>>>>> 2. Eight new HDMI clocks,
>>>>>> 3. Different PLLs (lucid and pongo).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2021, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2023-2024, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2024-2025, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>>>>
>>>>> -> Copyright (c) Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries.
>>>>
>>>> That's the copyright I found in the downstream code I used in few places
>>>> here (with modifications) and I am not touching them. I also don't care
>>>> about these and I am surprised this keeps popping in community review...
>>>
>>> You may not care, but our legal department does..
>>
>> And your task as community maintainer is to care about community and
>> Linux kernel, not about legal department.
>>
>> Legal department can comment here, if they care. You as maintainer have
>> rather responsibilities regardless of that legal department.
>>
>> Don't bring corpo legal stuff to the community.
> 
> Then please follow the internal company guidelines as outlined in the
> legal&marketing documents.

That's not your task to instruct people what internal stuff should they
follow or not.

Especially not implied by previous comment "Then".

> 
> JFYI, several other Qualcomm maintainers also enforce use of copyright
> headers for Qualcomm-provided patches. Konrad is not unique here.

I already objected to one of them, so I know.

You do understand that this is completely broken review process? As
every contributor, I can object to that comment with arguments (and I
did in the past), however you as reviewer do not bring any
counter-arguments for that all. You just refer "follow legal internal
stuff". No, this does not work for that.

If you bring review comment you must be able to justify it, when it is
being discussed. You cannot refer "but legal team said".

Otherwise look for comments for your contributions where you are going
to receive review "please remove all boilerplate because my legal team
told me that and I am not going to provide actual arguments why".

Best regards,
Krzysztof