[U-Boot] [PATCH 13/60] ARM: tegra: sort some board file include directives

[Stephen Warren]

On 04/24/2016 04:20 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen,
>
> In message <1461099580-3866-14-git-send-email-swarren at wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>>
>> --- a/board/avionic-design/common/tamonten-ng.c
>> +++ b/board/avionic-design/common/tamonten-ng.c
>> @@ -1,18 +1,19 @@
>>   /*
>>    * (C) Copyright 2013
>>    * Avionic Design GmbH <www.avionic-design.de>
>> + * Copyright (c) 2016, NVIDIA CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
>>    *
>>    * SPDX-License-Identifier:	GPL-2.0+
>>    */
>>
>>   #include <common.h>
>>   #include <dm.h>
>> +#include <i2c.h>
>> +#include <asm/gpio.h>
>>   #include <asm/arch/pinmux.h>
>>   #include <asm/arch/gp_padctrl.h>
>>   #include <asm/arch/gpio.h>
>> -#include <asm/gpio.h>
>>   #include "pinmux-config-tamonten-ng.h"
>> -#include <i2c.h>
>>
>>   #define PMU_I2C_ADDRESS		0x2D
>
> Do you really think that moving around two lines of code is a big
> enough creative achievement to justify adding a copyright note on it?

My understanding is yes; I edited the file in a non-trival way and so 
NVIDIA's copyright applies to those portions. I'd consider whitespace or 
spelling fixes to be trivial, but not much else. I believe there is 
creative achievement in cleaning up the code-base this way.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who 
could argue either way, perhaps depending on who pays them:-)

> I'm sorry, but I really dislike
> the way how it - intentionally or unintentionally - appears to be
> driven by the attempt to increase Nvidias presence in copyright
> claims.

FWIW, the purpose is to create a cleaner separate between the core Tegra 
SoC support code and board/driver code, to reduce their current rather 
tight coupling. The copyright changes are just correct application of 
the process of editing files; something I admit we/I've been a bit lax 
about in the past.

> This seems not fair to me, and I would like to ask you to rework this
> whole patch set and be a little less aggressive in copyright claims.

I don't see what's unfair either way. As far as I'm concerned, the 
copyright notices are simply due to my following the process I must 
follow. I don't believe the presence of NVIDIA's copyright notices takes 
anything away from anyone else, and as I mentioned above, they seem 
valid to me.