On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Guennadi Liakhovetski writes: > > > These two i2c patches: > > > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-June/037327.html > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-June/037328.html > > > > also would be nice to get in, although, they only make sense with an ack > > from Scott Wood and another patch from him, as explained in links above... > > Looks OK, but the first of those two patches doesn't have a > Signed-off-by: line, and the description is not suitable. > > Please repost that patch with a nice description that describes what > the patch does and why, without references to other web pages. You > don't need to describe what is different from previous patches or who > suggested those changes.
Ok, just reposted. I even used the original subject line and the description from Scott's email. I also removed the part for drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c - it is a separate patch http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-May/036079.html and I hope it'll make it in either via ppc or via i2c tree (it was cc'ed) as well as http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-May/036333.html (sorry, Paul, for links again). Speaking about [EMAIL PROTECTED] - which way should these patches go? Is it the usual separation drivers/i2c goes via i2c and arch/powerpc via ppc? Or should I also email i2c folks to tell them not to use the original patch from Scott? Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
