[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linuxppc-dev
Subject:    for-2.6.23 branch in powerpc.git created
From:       g.liakhovetski () gmx ! de (Guennadi Liakhovetski)
Date:       2007-06-29 19:48:52
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.60.0706292131390.4227 () poirot ! grange
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:

> Guennadi Liakhovetski writes:
> 
> > These two i2c patches:
> > 
> > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-June/037327.html
> > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-June/037328.html
> > 
> > also would be nice to get in, although, they only make sense with an ack 
> > from Scott Wood and another patch from him, as explained in links above...
> 
> Looks OK, but the first of those two patches doesn't have a
> Signed-off-by: line, and the description is not suitable.
> 
> Please repost that patch with a nice description that describes what
> the patch does and why, without references to other web pages.  You
> don't need to describe what is different from previous patches or who
> suggested those changes.

Ok, just reposted. I even used the original subject line and the 
description from Scott's email. I also removed the part for 
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c - it is a separate patch 
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-May/036079.html and I hope 
it'll make it in either via ppc or via i2c tree (it was cc'ed) as well as 
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-May/036333.html (sorry, 
Paul, for links again).

Speaking about i2c at lm-sensors.org - which way should these patches go? Is 
it the usual separation drivers/i2c goes via i2c and arch/powerpc via ppc? 
Or should I also email i2c folks to tell them not to use the original 
patch from Scott?

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]