On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:26 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > 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. I see. I will reuest Intel to review again and put signature. > Hi Qi and Yong Y Could you review this patch again and put signature? Thanks, Tomoya(OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean Delvare" <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Tomoya MORINAGA" <tomoya-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Samuel Ortiz" <sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Wolfram Sang" <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "LKML" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Ben Dooks " <ben-linux@xxxxxxxxx>; "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "srinidhi kasagar" <srinidhi.kasagar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Tomoya MORINAGA" <morinaga526@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Wang Qi" <qi.wang@xxxxxxxxx>; "Wang Yong Y" <yong.y.wang@xxxxxxxxx>; <kok.howg.ewe@xxxxxxxxx>; <joel.clark@xxxxxxxxx>; <andrew.chih.howe.khor@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Topcliff: Update PCH_I2C driver to 2.6.36 > 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-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- 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
