On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 22:52:00 +0300 >> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Marcus Folkesson >> > <marcus.folkesson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > MCP3911 is a dual channel Analog Front End (AFE) containing two >> > > synchronous sampling delta-sigma Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADC). >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > > Signed-off-by: Kent Gustavsson <kent@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > What is this? Why it's here (presense and location in the message)? >> To clarify... If Kent wrote the patch and you are simply acting >> as gatekeeper / upstreamer you should set the mail to be from Kent >> and put your own Signed-off after his to basically act as a submaintainer >> certifying you believe his sign off and all that entails. Yep. And here the ordering is incorrect, right? >> If it is a bit of a joint effort then that's fine but for copyright >> purposes there should be some indication of the split. > > First, thank you Andy for noticing. > > I actually intended to use Co-Developed-by (a pretty new tag) > in combination with Signed-off-by. > But the tag must have disappeared in some preparation stage.. > > From Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst :: > > A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people > work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by: > line in the patch as well. > > I will switch order and add the Co-Developed-by-tag. > Is this correct? > > Co-Developed-by: Kent Gustavsson <kent@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Kent Gustavsson <kent@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@xxxxxxxxx> Yep, this looks good! >> > > + of_property_read_u32(of_node, "device-addr", &adc->dev_addr); >> > Isn't what we called CS (chip select)? >> Nope. We went around this in an earlier revision. It's an address transmitted >> in the control byte to allow you to 'share' a chip select line between multiple >> chips (crazy but true). OK. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
