amdgpu: Enable full DCN support on POWER

[Michel Dänzer]

On 2019-12-06 12:34 a.m., Timothy Pearson wrote:
>> From: "Harry Wentland" <hwentlan at amd.com> On 2019-12-05 6:02 p.m.,
>> Liu, Zhan wrote:
>>>> From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf
>>>> Of Timothy Pearson
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/Makefile 
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/Makefile index
>>>> a160512a2f04..3e026a969386 100644 ---
>>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/Makefile +++
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/Makefile @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ # #
>>>> Copyright 2017 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. +# Copyright 2019
>>>> Raptor Engineering, LLC
>>> 
>>> NAK.
>>> 
>>> IANAL, but I don't think you can add your company's name by
>>> modifying part of the code. The copyright notice shows the
>>> authors of the original work.
>>> 
>>> When modifying the code, you are required to agree with that
>>> copyright notice. That's the purpose of that copyright notice
>>> piece.

Where did you get that from? Adding a copyright line like this to files
containing code to which one holds the copyright is standard practice.


>> I always thought these copyright notices are nearly meaningless.
>> 
>> That said, this patch doesn't have any change in this file. I
>> don't think it warrants an additional copyright notice.
>> 
>> Harry
> 
> Agreed -- looks like that snuck in with the other changes.  I can
> back this one out, however in general regardless of the notice having
> any actual legal meaning (the GIT commit history has the actual legal
> teeth from what I understand as it establishes shared ownership), our
> general policy per recommendations is to add the copyright line.  It
> helps anyone looking at the file know at a glance that there is more
> than one corporate author, and therefore e.g. the only terms it can
> be used on without a complex multi-party license renegotiation is (in
> this case) the GPL v2.

Did you read the licence under the copyright line you added? :)

Or are you saying that your patch is intended to be available under the
GPL only? I'm afraid that would be a problem.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               https://redhat.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer