Hi, On 30/07/13 21:26, Darren Etheridge wrote: > Changes in v2: > Addressing review comments from Tomi Valkeinen: > Dropped readl/writel patch > Many cosmetic changes to make code easier to understand > > > This is primarily a resend of a series of patches that were original > submitted to linux-fbdev back in January of 2013 for 3.8 by Afzal > Mohammed. I have rebased them on 3.10 and also made sure they > apply cleanly to the 'for-next' branch of linux-fbdev git. > The patches enable use of the current mainline da8xx-fb driver on the > TI AM335x SOC along with some bug fixes and cleanup. > > The original patch series can be found here: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fbdev/list/?submitter=39101 > if you want to see the history. Comments on the whole series: Most of the patches are originally from Afzal. I believe some of the patches are unchanged, but some are changed by you. In cases like this you should pick one of the following options for each patch: - If the patch is unchanged, send the patch as it is, having From: Afzal line there. - If you have changed the patch, send the patch having From: Afzal line, but marking in the description that you've changed it (and what you did). This should be done if the changes are small. - If you changed a lot in the patch, send the patch with yourself as the author, signed off by only you, but mention that it's based on Afzal's work. The point here is that if you change the patch, it's no longer Afzal's original patch. Afzal hasn't reviewed it, so signed-off-by Afzal is not correct. You could've introduced horrible bugs in the patch, and I'm sure Afzal doesn't want to see that a patch in the kernel introducing horrible bugs is from him (when it is not from him). Of course, if you have actively discussed the patches with Afzal, and he's okay with all the changes you've made, then the patches are fine. Another thing are the DT related patches. They should be sent to devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for review. And I think the DT patches should be squashed into one, as they are quite short and having them as a whole makes it easier to look at them. You could probably move the DT patches to a separate series, so that we can merge the rest of the improvements, and manage DT separately. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
