[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <001c01cb74f2$d3dd8990$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:47:37 +0900
From: "Tomoya MORINAGA" <tomoya-linux@....okisemi.com>
To: "Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc: "Samuel Ortiz" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
"Wolfram Sang" <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ben Dooks \(embedded platforms\)" <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
"srinidhi kasagar" <srinidhi.kasagar@...ricsson.com>,
"Tomoya MORINAGA" <morinaga526@....okisemi.com>,
"Wang Qi\"" <qi.wang@...el.com>,
"Wang Yong Y\"" <yong.y.wang@...el.com>, <kok.howg.ewe@...el.com>,
<joel.clark@...el.com>, <andrew.chih.howe.khor@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Topcliff: Update PCH_I2C driver to 2.6.36
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 <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
Though I haven't heard like the requirement,
if Intel's signature is mandatory, I will request to Intel.
Thanks, Tomoya(OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists