From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759867Ab0JZL1S (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:27:18 -0400 Received: from zone0.gcu-squad.org ([212.85.147.21]:13998 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757180Ab0JZL1R (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:27:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:26:49 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: "Tomoya MORINAGA" Cc: "Samuel Ortiz" , "Wolfram Sang" , "Ralf Baechle" , , "LKML" , "Ben Dooks " , "Linus Walleij" , "srinidhi kasagar" , "Tomoya MORINAGA" , "Wang Qi" , "Wang Yong Y" , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Topcliff: Update PCH_I2C driver to 2.6.36 Message-ID: <20101026132649.623461f9@endymion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <001c01cb74f2$d3dd8990$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> References: <4CC645A1.5010509@dsn.okisemi.com> <20101026102048.316d0c04@endymion.delvare> <001a01cb74ec$e3eb3ea0$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> <20101026111322.738b0b14@endymion.delvare> <001c01cb74f2$d3dd8990$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:47:37 +0900, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote: > Hi Jean, > > On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:13 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > > The _pch becomes redundant then, i2c-topcliff.c would be enough, but > > both are fine with me, as my initial concern is gone. > I agree. > I will modify to "i2c-topcliff.c". > > > There's no Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Signed-off-by from anyone at Intel > > in the patch you posted. > Must we get Intel's signature ? > We have already got the following. Isn't this enough ? > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij > > Though I haven't heard like the requirement, > if Intel's signature is mandatory, I will request to Intel. It's not mandatory, but the time Ben and myself have to review new drivers is scarce, so it's in your own interest to have the code reviewed by people with more time and more interest in the specific hardware. I can only imagine that Intel wants Topcliff to be supported as soon as possible by the Linux kernel, so they should certainly have resources to allocate for the review and testing. -- Jean Delvare From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Topcliff: Update PCH_I2C driver to 2.6.36 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:26:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20101026132649.623461f9@endymion.delvare> References: <4CC645A1.5010509@dsn.okisemi.com> <20101026102048.316d0c04@endymion.delvare> <001a01cb74ec$e3eb3ea0$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> <20101026111322.738b0b14@endymion.delvare> <001c01cb74f2$d3dd8990$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <001c01cb74f2$d3dd8990$66f8800a-a06+6cuVnkTSQfdrb5gaxUEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Tomoya MORINAGA Cc: Samuel Ortiz , Wolfram Sang , Ralf Baechle , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, LKML , Ben Dooks , Linus Walleij , srinidhi kasagar , Tomoya MORINAGA , Wang Qi , Wang Yong Y , kok.howg.ewe-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, joel.clark-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, andrew.chih.howe.khor-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:47:37 +0900, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote: > Hi Jean, > > On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:13 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > > The _pch becomes redundant then, i2c-topcliff.c would be enough, but > > both are fine with me, as my initial concern is gone. > I agree. > I will modify to "i2c-topcliff.c". > > > There's no Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Signed-off-by from anyone at Intel > > in the patch you posted. > Must we get Intel's signature ? > We have already got the following. Isn't this enough ? > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij > > Though I haven't heard like the requirement, > if Intel's signature is mandatory, I will request to Intel. It's not mandatory, but the time Ben and myself have to review new drivers is scarce, so it's in your own interest to have the code reviewed by people with more time and more interest in the specific hardware. I can only imagine that Intel wants Topcliff to be supported as soon as possible by the Linux kernel, so they should certainly have resources to allocate for the review and testing. -- Jean Delvare