Sean MacLennan wrote:
P.S. Do I need a signed-off-by for an RFC?
Signed-off-by: Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Not usually. Some intentionally leave the S-o-b: off of
and RFC specifically to ensure that it stays RFC-ish and
doesn't slip into patchness.
jdl
__
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:43:39PM -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:25:05 -0400
> "Jon Smirl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 6/28/08, Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This is a patch to the ibm iic driver that uses the non-numbered
> > > i2c call and there
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:25:05 -0400
"Jon Smirl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/28/08, Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a patch to the ibm iic driver that uses the non-numbered
> > i2c call and therefore does not need an index. Instead, it
> > registers the ibm iic, then wal
On 6/28/08, Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a patch to the ibm iic driver that uses the non-numbered
> i2c call and therefore does not need an index. Instead, it registers the
> ibm iic, then walks all the child nodes and adds them. This is required
> for new style drivers, o
This is a patch to the ibm iic driver that uses the non-numbered
i2c call and therefore does not need an index. Instead, it registers the
ibm iic, then walks all the child nodes and adds them. This is required
for new style drivers, old style drivers "just work".
The warp has both a new style driv
