On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Sean MacLennan <smaclen...@pikatech.com> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:12:50 -0700 (PDT) > "Trent Piepho" <xy...@speakeasy.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Sean MacLennan wrote: >> > Now that leds-gpio is a proper OF platform driver, the Warp can use >> > the leds-gpio driver rather than the old out-of-kernel driver. >> > >> > One side-effect is the leds-gpio driver always turns the leds off >> > while the old driver left them alone. So we have to set them back to >> > the correct settings. >> >> Originally, I had the OF bindings support this feature, see >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/749094 >> >> Maybe this would be a better way to do it? It avoids the glitch in >> the leds, is less code overall, and can be use by other devices that >> might want this same behavior. > > Yes, that is a cleaner way to handle the LEDs. Do you know why this > patch wasn't accepted at the time? A quick google shows that Grant > Likely acked it. > > The patch will no longer apply since default state does not exist.
It got left here: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Richard Purdie <rpur...@rpsys.net> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 04:58 -0800, Trent Piepho wrote: >> It doesn't seem right to merge someone's patches together, make a very >> small change, and then no longer credit them as the author. Seems like it >> defeats the purpose of the SOB lines for tracing the train of custody too. >> If someone looks to see where the code came from, it will look like you >> wrote it. Maybe Freescale will say Intel stole our code? Without the SOB, >> what record is there in git that Freescale gave permission to put the code >> in the kernel? >> >> I also put some significant effort into writing informative commit >> messages, which have been lost. Along with Grant's acks for my patches. > > It also doesn't make sense to make three changes adding different > interfaces and rearranging the same section of code three different > times. I'm dropping the patch, please send me a merged version of those > patches with a commit message you're happy with. If you want Acked-by > lines, we'll have to wait for them on the new patch as I'm going to do > this exactly by the book regardless of time pressures now. Please > indicate who you want Ack-ed by lines from so I know who to wait for. > Also, you'd better exclude the suspend/resume change and credit me for > the bitfield change, just to be 100% sure this is all legally accurate. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
