amdgpu: Enable full DCN support on POWER

Timothy Pearson tpearson at
Fri Dec 6 20:29:07 UTC 2019

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michel Dänzer" <michel at>
> To: "Timothy Pearson" <tpearson at>, "Harry Wentland" <hwentlan at>
> Cc: "Zhan Liu" <Zhan.Liu at>, "amd-gfx" <amd-gfx at>
> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 10:12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: amdgpu: Enable full DCN support on POWER

> On 2019-12-06 12:34 a.m., Timothy Pearson wrote:
>>> From: "Harry Wentland" <hwentlan at> On 2019-12-05 6:02 p.m.,
>>> Liu, Zhan wrote:
>>>>> From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces at> 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? :)

Nope, I didn't, at least not right before sending that reply -- I didn't have a copy of the file up on that device , and was wildly guessing based on the overall kernel distribution license.

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

No, there's no problem here with the existing license.  Updated version of the patch with a few technical issues fixed should be coming later today / tomorrow (depending on how quickly I can get an ACK/NACK on functionality from the person that has access to the Navi card).

> --
> Earthling Michel Dänzer               |     
> Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer
> _______________________________________________
> amd-gfx mailing list
> amd-gfx at

More information about the amd-gfx mailing list