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 <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
