On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 06:36:32PM +0200, Benjamin Valentin wrote: > Am Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:42:05 -0700 > schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > For staging drivers I need a maintainer that is going to take the time > > to shephard it into the core kernel tree. See other TODO files for > > how that person is defined. Are you going to be willing to do this? > > I can see what I can do. Great. > I've cleaned up the code a bit, especially where it would redefine > kernel functions. [1] Should I submit the end result, one file per > patch, or begin with the original code and submit patches on top of > that? Probably start with the original submission from Samsung, with their signed-off-by: lines, and then add patches afterward that from you with your fixes / cleanups. That shows the development effort and gives everyone the proper credit/blame :) > Also, the driver would define it's own data types like > typedef unsigned int UINT32; > > I've replaced that with u32, etc as the naming implied the bit size > would matter. (And it probably does for the on-disk file system > structures, but they are used for everything) Is there any disadvantage > to this over using the standard C types? Those _are_ the standard kernel C types, so that's the correct thing to do. > > Also, I would really like to get a signed-off-by: from the Samsung > > authors for this patch, can you do that as well please? > > I've tried reaching them by their last public e-mail addresses I could > find, but they would either bounce or I got no reply. Who did you contact at Samsung? I'll be visiting there in a week so I can try to track some people done in person. I really want their signed-off-by: on the patch, as it is their code to start with, and it's a bit rude to not get their approval for the code to be merged. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
